δον τ τσ κε or αἰ γλλνους 
ρ γγένε με seus 


ee 
Paes wed 


se 
ΠΥ ΕΝ 
ow 


Teramer ς Sete Nee 
erent reer 


δ ας τὸ ey απ MAE rye 
tise et τος 
prpeee fees bait h ae Ψ oh 


re 


vii 


Srom fBe Librarp of 
Professor Witham Henrp Breen 


Bequeathed By Bim to 
tbe Lifrarp of | 


Princeton Ὁ Seminary 
Bs a ea a 


= eg 


: a ae Ἃ ; af, 
‘ .᾿ _ we 
INTRODUCTION * 


Ν ἊΝ εν og Ὗ 
᾿ς + ye 
᾿ J 
#.. 


rs 
“7 


ΤΟ 


THE NEW TESTAMENT 


oon 

a 

a 
ae 


Yee 


ἀξ ας ΟΝ " 
eae eae TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION 


* 
Τὴ τῷ 
‘ 


BY 


“ἂν . DAVID FOSDICK Jr. τ 


πο -.ὺὕἥ  θ 


: 2 


a fe : 
ae. BY. STUARTS: 
a Prof. Sacred Lit. in the Theol. Sem. Andover. 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by 


Gouutp ann Newman, bs 
Ν "ἧς in the Clerk’s iptive of the District Court of Muassathisstret f 


PREFACE 


BY THE TRANSLATOR. 


Tuxose who are acquainted with the merits of Hug’s Introduction 
to the New Testament, will not think it strange that it should be 
deemed worthy of an English dress. It has long been in high re- 
pute in Germany, and among German scholars in other countries. 
As an index to the estimate put upon it in Germany, we may take 
the declaration of Gesenius (Bibl. Essays Art. I.) made with direct 
reference to this work : ‘“* He [Hug] excels all his predecessors in 
deep and fundamental investigations.” 

It is probably known to most who will read this preface, that an 
English translation of this work has already been published, (Lon- 
don, 1827, 2 vols. 8vo.), which was made by the Rev. Daniel 
Guilford Wat, LL. D. On examination this was found to be 
very imperfect, as it not only misses oftentimes, but occasionally 
. reverses, the sense of the original. It exhibits, moreover, not only 
ἐξ such a deficiency of acquaintance with the German language as is 
culpable in any one who undertakes to translate such a work, but 
also a want of practice, or at least of skill, even in English compo- 
sition. 

Some of the mistranslations are such as appear to be absolutely 
ludicrous. ‘Two or three instances may suffice to justily this asser- 
tion. For the first, see p. 312 Vol. I. of the translation. In the 
third note, Hug intended to say that a certain edition of the New 
Testament was to be found in the Library of the University with 
which he was connected. ‘To this end he uses the simple German 
demonstrative pronoun hiesigen (this, or this here.) Dr. Wait 
makes hiesigen, however. a proper name, and translates it by 
οτος _Hessian! ‘Thus, instead of “ the library of the University in this 
place,” we have “ the academical library of Hessza !” Phas 
~ On p. 318 of the same volume, we find a ludicrous, though in- 
tended as a grave, note by the translator, respecting the sense of _ 
the expression “jener armen Siinder,” those poor sinners, some- —_— 
what humorously employed by Hug. The note of Dr. Wait is as 
follows : being provided with a copy of this edition,f am un- τ΄ 


οί 


δὲ . 
τῳ Οῃ p. 484 of the same volume, Wait translates ‘ 


tig f me 
me, ω i ΤΌ Νς FA pre ἣν ᾿ 
ee a ES Oe OA. oom » ° 
΄: Ma ’ 4 “ ΨΩ 


iv TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


(the name by which one division of the city of Prague is designated, 
meaning, Little Prague,) the weak side! 

It is unnecessary to multiply such instances. A perusal of the 
English, even without reference to the German, would satisfy every 
person competent to judge, that the translation is very defective. 
Another has therefore been deemed expedient. 

It should be noticed, moreover, that Wait’s version was made os 
from the second German edition ; while the present has been made 
from the third, to which many important additions were made by 
the author. 

In translating, 1 have looked, or striven to look, more at the sense 
than the phraseology of the writer; believing that the rule of Hor- 
ace is as suitable in this case, as in the case to which he originally 
applied it: ‘* Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus interpres.” 

(Hor. Ars Poet. 1. 133.) 1 would fain hope that the present trans- 
lation is more correct than the one already published; though 
doubtless severe scrutiny, or even a cursory reading, might discov- 
er in it many imperfections. It is due to truth that I should ac- 
knowledge myself far from being satisfied with the manner in which 
I have executed my task. It has been performed under some 
disadvantages. ‘hose, however, who are best acquainted with the 
difficulty of translating German into English, and also with the in- 
volved sentences and faulty style of composition to be found in Hug, 
will not be forward to denounce the defects which the version ex- Ὁ 
hibits. Many pages might be devoted to the statement and exem- 
plification of the faults of style in the original; but it would be 
out of place to do this here. ‘Suffice it to say, that in general what 
is obscure in the translation is as much or more so in the original. 

I have corrected almost innumerable mistakes in the references, 
numbers, &c. Many of them, it is probable, were only typograph- 
ical errors. I fear that careful scrutiny may discover some new er- 
rors in the translation. 

It is certainly singular that Hug should have neglected to affix 
the accents to the Greek so plentifully introduced into his work. i 
The task of adding them has been no slight one; as, in common ~ 4 
with most of my countrymen who have studied the Greek lan- 
gaage, 1 was very little versed in the somewhat intricate theory of 
Greek accentuation. The first few sheets will be found more im- _ 
perfect, in this respect, than the later ones. 

In conclusion, it may not be improper for me to say, that hadI | 
been at first fully aware of the difficulty of the task to be accom- 

gepiished in the translation and publication of this work, I should have 
undertaken it, if at all, with far less alacrity and more circum- 


-+ 


spection, and prosecuted it with more deliberate and considerate δ" 
examination than.I have actually practised. ‘ # aed 
Y : ae “ 
Cambridge, Mass. . - 
5, April 1, 880. D. F. Jr. 
‘ “ Pi ; Σ ἤν." ‘ TNS yy 
«- 4 mM, aa ἣ» 


PREFATORY- REMARKS 


BY M. STUART. 


ι 


Tue remarks which Mr. Fosdick has made upon the difficulties 
of Hug’s style, seem to me very just. After being somewhat con- 
versant with German for a quarter of a century, Hug obliges me 
often to reperuse some of his sentences, more than once too, before 
I am satisfied that I understand them; and even then, there are 
some of them in respect to which I do not feel certain that I have 
discovered the meaning of the writer. 

It is difficult to characterize that in the author which occasions 
this obscurity. There is not only a negligence as to the essential 
parts and relative positions of the proper ingredients of a perspicu- 
ous sentence, but (what I must call) an affectation of singularity, a 
peculiarity in modes of thought and expression. ‘This, Lowever, 
may belong to the mental characteristics of the author, rather than 
to his affectation ; but if it is so, it does not diminish the difficulties 
in the way of a translator. No wonder that Dr. Wait, with his mite 
of ‘German knowledge, could succeed no better. The translation 
of Hug is a task “" altius expeditis.” 

I have not compared the body of Mr. Fosdick’s version with the 
original ; for this has been out of my power, and would have been 
little if any less labour than to translate the whole. But I have 
here and there compared parts of his translation with the German 
original, and found them to answer the just and reasonable expec- 
tations of the reader. That he has expended much severe labour 
on the work, there can be no doubt. That the version is sufficient- 
ly true and faithful to answer all the important purposes of a ver- 
sion, is clear to my mind. I have had a good opportunity to know 
this; inasmuch as I have read, or rather studied, the book through- 
out in its English dress, in order to prepare for writing the Notes 


contained in the Appendix. 


It is not important for me to say much, if any thing, in this place, 
with regard to the manner in which Hug has executed this work, 
and the relative value of the work itself. My notes will disclose to 
the reader, how far I agree or disagree with him, in respect to most 
of his important positions. His mode of arguing and illustrating is 


often original and peculiar. It is not the more attractive to me, 


“however, on this account. He does not say even the most com- 
mon things, in the way that others say them ;_ whether from affec- 
tation, or peculiarity of mind, J know not. ‘Yet there is not so 

ψ . Me . Φ ὧ» ἊΝ 
ge ; ee at 


Pa Pi ᾿ - , ᾽ν 4 
᾿. Ἢ 4 > ΔΙᾺ Ἂ . Sh 


΄ 


Ἧ : Ὕ 


vi PREFATORY REMARKS. 


much of this as ought to offend the reader, or to give him a distaste 
for the work. But in my humble opinion, when perspicuity in any 
writer is sacrificed, all other gain that is made by such a sacrifice 
can be no adequate compensation for this loss. 

Hug now and then proposes some singular theories; in some 
cases I should even venture upon calling them concetts. But these 
are not frequent; and not many German writers of the present day 
will be found, who are men of genius, that do not abound in these 
more than Hug. 

The recent literature respecting the New Testament, which he . 
professes in his preface to have regarded and examined, has been 
but very sparingly examined by him, to say the least. And since 
the appearance of his third edition, there has been a great deal 
written which is more valuable than most that is to be found in the 
older literature. Every year is making some advances in the noble 
science of sacred literature. My notes will furnish the reader with 
references, which will aid him to extend his investigations beyond the 
pale of criticism as marked out by Hug. ‘To have canvassed all the 
positions of Hug, would have demanded a book as large as his.own 5 
which would be inconsistent with the design of the work and the 
plan of the publishers. But whenever I have thought there was 
any important error or defect in the author, I have endeavoured to 
point it out, and briefly to give my reasons why I deemed it to be 
an error or defect. ‘This is all that the Notes could promise or ac- 
complish, unless the entire plan of the publication had been chang- 
ed; which I did not think best. 

The reader will be desirous to know something of Hug, in re- 
spect to his religious developments. He must know, then, that 
Hug is a Roman Catholic with a kind of Protestant heart. He 
wears, rather impatiently, if I discern aright, the chains which his 
profession imposes upon him: and when he comes to critical con- 
clusions which he apprehends may be construed as being included 
under the banns of Mother-Church, he endeavours to make a sepa- 
ration between his critical and his Catholic conscience. His criti- 
cal conscience is at liberty, while his Catholic conscience is permit- 
ted to go along with the multitude. This awkward predicament Ὧν 
gives birth to some curious paragraphs in his book. : 

In respect to the great question between believers in a divine 

revelation and neologists, Hug seems, in the preface to his third 

edition, to have taken decisive ground ; at least his language is cer- 
tainly designed to wear this appearance. Speaking of the many 
discussions that have lately taken place in regard to the New Tes- 
tament, and of the many attacks made upon the genuineness and 
authenticity of these writings, he uses the following language, in 
his prefaces ὦ 

“ The ie between the N atifalisns and the Supematuralists 


of 7 
2 . 


nee ae ‘ 
ee ΠΣ ὃ ὁ 


>” 


ἊΨ Sry 


Ἢ 
᾿ 


— 


PREFATORY REMARKS. Vii 


have constituted an important part of the recent disputes. The 
first have made pure Theism their aim; and acknowledge nothing 
as appropriate in the way of investigation respecting morals and 
theology, excepting a philosophy, into which the common people 
can never make any deep researches. This last class of men 


need the positive in religion, and always will need it. This is given 


to them in a manner so noble, so perfect, so intelligible, that the 
simpleton becomes as good and virtuous, or even more so than the 
most learned, and more so than learning can make them. Why 
should we substitute, then, the commands of philosophy for those of 
the God of heaven? 

“They [the Naturalists] think, perhaps, that they have outgrown 
the other or old School. Bravo! Yet, if this be the case, they 


-must be uncommon men, whom the common citizen of the town or 


country has neither preparation nor leisure nor capacity to imitate. 
The mass of men the Naturalists cannot even hope to reach in their 
instructions ; and all which they could achieve, if they did, would 
be to occasion to them the loss of what they already possess. The 
good which philosophical investigation and _self-instruction proffer, 
the commonalty are not able to acquire. 

“The efforts of the Naturalists must be limited to the more 
learned class of mea, so far as they are concerned with opposition 
to Supernaturalism. If, however, there is many a man, who, in all 
the efforts of philosophy past or prospective, in the ebb and flow of 
sinking and falling systems, finds no sure place to set down his foot, 
and who yet obtains quietude in a belief of the scriptural books 
which speak to his heart in so friendly a manner, and kindle in him 
desires after all that is beautiful and good ; why should any one 
strive to tear from him that to which he holds fast amid the waves 
of fluctuating opinions, and to substitute that in its place in which he 
has no confidence? The greatest philosopher can be no more than 
a virtuous man ; what illiberality, then, in forbidding one to travel 
in any reputable road, except that of Rationalism! 

*“‘ They separate Religion and Morals, because the Greeks and 
Romans did so. But without any reason. Christianity in its very 


_ nature is practical; and pure virtue, in its perfect state, is the 


Christian religion. All the doctrines which respect God, a future 
state, etc., tend only to produce a virtuous life; which is the high- 
estend of man. 

“The edifice of Gitetinity was built in a few years by using 
the scaffolding of Supernaturalism, and was in a short time filled 
with many inmates from. different countries. But if Christianity 
had been only a school of philosophy, instructing and arguing on 


‘the grounds of mere reason, it would have attracted but a narrow 
8 1, 


circle of inquirers, like other schools, 68. g. the Academy, and the 
Force the Peripaton, aad would: never have been a popular 
lastiiuter A= "3 Geo mo + oes 
ay ΔΝ ms, ne ν ΗΝ oe 
+," . oe , i ἢ y 
aie Ae ἘΦ, ἃ, τ 


Vill PREFATORY REMARKS. 


«ΤῸ operate quickly on the mass of men, there was but one 
means, at that was Supernaturalism. The divine authority of the 
instruction communicated was declared by this, and was raised 
above doubts, and proclaimed as the highest rule for all men, for 
the unwise and even children; and by this these were placed in a 
condition, as to living and acting, like that of the wisest. I may 
well ask: If a thousand Professors of Rationalism were sent out 
into all the world, by means of rationalist schools and instructions 
to make men in general become moral, and to establish them in a 
virtuous life, will they venture to say, that they could have accom- 
plished it ?” 

These remarks are certainly very pointed, and withal go very 
deep into the subject. The appeal is ultimate. By its fruits Ra- 
tionalism is to be known and tried; hasit produced, can it produce, 
much good fruit?. 

The older work of Michaelis on the literature of the N. Test., 
as translated by Marsh and accompanied by his Notes, has much 
in it that is useful. Mr. Horne’s recent work has also many use- 
ful things, and exhibits great industry and pains on his part. But 
the work of Hug is more compressed in its manner, and more reg- 
ular in its structure. On the whole, it would be difficult to select 
any one Introduction to the N. Test., which comprises more im- 
portant and valuable matter that would be likely to prove attrac- 
tive tothe reader. [indulge the hope, that those who have labour- 
ed to bring this work before the public in an acceptable form, among 
whom its enterprising publishers are to be reckoned, have not la- 
boured in vain. 


Andover Theol. Sem. 
April 12, 1836. 


INTRODUCTION 


TO THE 


SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


PASSE 
CHAP. [. 
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THESE WRITINGS. 
§ 1. Importance of these books in general. 


Att the larger nations, of which we have any account, possessed or 
still possess systems of positive religion. These merely comprise cer- 
tain directions how to live at peace with the gods, by means of sacri- 
fices, presents and other tokens of service; or, in later times and 
cultivated states, enjoin the practice of social and personal virtues. So 
will it ever be, unless we idly attempt to urge men forward to a point 
which, as a body, they can never reach. It is a vain idea to expect, in 
future times, nations of absolute philosophers and communities of men 
like Socrates.! 

The cares of life which press upon a large portion of our race, will 
never cease to require for themselves the time necessary for such in- 
vestigations and conclusions. Besides, what is to guide each of us in 
the interim before we should be furnished with a stock of wisdom? 
_ What to become of him who cannot at any rate keep pace with his more 
gifted brother? What is to ‘guide the young human being before he 
attains the capacity of self direction? Do you say the authority of 
parents and fellow-citizens? Very well: but let then an authority more 
worthy of reliance, more general, more consistent and more sacred than 
any other, be extended over them at birth; one which governs even the 
ΜΩ͂Ν and principles of parents and citizens. 

e obligations of civil life are not more difficult of discovery than 
those of Pa morality ; yet we despair of ever seeing nations, without 


10 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


positive laws, solely by dint of their own sagacity, deduce their civil 
obligations from the principles upon which they rest, and enter on their 
faithful performance. For the same reason that the code of civil law 
among nations is positive, must the code of morals be so too; for both 
alike aim at the direction of mankind and their actions. 

The ancients did not discriminate so accurately. The time had not 
come to distinguish things which were lawful’ from things which were 
virtuous. For the first step, much was gained by discovering the former 
and coming to an agreement concerning them; but the latter were still 
undefined, the portion of rare and noble souls. Hence men were 
content with rendering hallowed the requisitions of the laws by means 
of the gods, and religion became a part of the civil ordinances of the 
state. 

He who first isolated man, abstracted him from place, people, and 
country, and from all extrinsic influence, was in the way of discovering 
a law of the heart which is sacred to all beings of our race wherever 
they may be. Such a religion cannot but be true; since, disregarding 
adventitious circumstances, it constitutes an universal rule which tends 
to ennoble the nature of all intelligent creatures. 

Happy the nations who possess such a religion! They have an 
eternal property; for the fundamental principles of such a religion must 
ever remain the same. It is indeed the case that divine truth, when it 
descends to man, does not always obtain a suitable reception. It must 
take its way through men’s intellect. Hence it is the lot of every 
religion to be apprehended, interpreted and practised, very much ac- 
cording to the other leading views and intellectual characteristics of its 
disciples. Since the cultivation and intelligence of a people are different 
at different times, since periods of light alternate in history with periods 
of darkness, it is not strange that religion did not always and every- 
where meet with minds prepared to receive it; and yet it was obliged, 
like all other science, to adapt itself to the whole mental character of 
those to whom it came. Individuals may constitute exceptions to this; 
but such is not the character of the whole race. 

But whatever fate true religion may meet with, such is its nature, 
that it quietly disengages itself from connexion and misinterpretation 
with the mass of other sciences and arts, and rises to that purity so 
peculiarly its own. On this account it can never become useless ; the 
period wiil never arrive when we must lay it aside. If no hindrances 
or important obstructions intervene in the way of its equal pace with 
the human mind, it ever accompanies us through all situations without 
violent changes: it is beneficent without exhibiting terrible phenomena; 
not like the tempest and earthquake, but like the succession of the 
seasons, which are rough or kindly according to the terrestrial changes 
which occasion them. 

The first universal religion was derived from Judaism. There was 
its groundwork, monotheism, together with many other principles natu- 
rally flowing from this. It was Jesus of Nazareth who first took so ex- 
tended a view as to grasp in his mind the idea of a religion for the 
whole world, and first succeeded in reducing that idea toa reality. If 
ever before any mortal, for instance the sgn of Sophroniscus, attained 
an idea of the kind, he failed in attempting to extend it among a people 


“iw ye 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. " 


who far surpassed all others in cultivation and susceptibility to truth 
and beauty. Jesus seized those fundamental principles which were 
current among his countrymen; discarded everything which had merely 
a local, civil, or national reference ; selected the purely moral, refined 
and elevated it to its true dignity, and rendered it complete by supplying 
its deficiency. 

True, he invested it anew with the authority of the positive institution 
of the Supreme Being, from whom he derived his commission ; but he 
freed it from the influence of civil coercion, and simply submitted it to 
faith and judgment, that all men, each according to his capacity, might 
share in it, and that all their talents might be developed and exercised 
upon it and thereby constantly improved. 

Although, with a wise regard to intellectual weakness, all our duties 
are separately presented and enjoined, yet no one is hindered from 
searching throughout creation for their grounds and combining them in 
one complete system. Indeed Jesus himself communicated to us the 
first rudiments of such a course, summoning all our powers into spirited 
action, thrusting us out, as it were, into boundless space, and presenting 
the universe to our faculties that we might gather from it knowledge 
and wisdom. Hitherto the first principle of social life alone had been 
discovered, viz. so to conduct towards men ourselves, as we would wish 
them to conduct towards us; but Jesus often pointed to the fundamen- 
tal doctrines of morality, to the sustaining and disinterestedly active 
First Cause of the beauty and happiness of universal existence—thus 
introducing his more enlightened disciples into the whole field of nature, 
there to search out the plan of the Deity, and to examine systematically 
what he has given in precepts, and to expound from the order of things 
what he has declared as the absolute injunctions of the universal Parent. 

As a matter not within human disposal, Jesus aimed at the sanction 
of his precepts by inculcating a higher destiny, and by pointing for- 
ward to a future state, the reality of which before his time had been 
only conjectured by great and wise men, but had never been generally 
believed. Thus, by opening to his disciples a view into another more 
active system of being, he transferred the reward of virtue and the 
punishment of vice from this life which often crowns with success the 
undertakings of the wicked, gave to the soul a lofty elevation above the 
interests of this present moment, and warmed it to anticipate and hope 
for a more delightful condition as the reward for the offering of a life 
well-spent in the present world. 

Thus did Jesus elevate the Mosaic constitution into a religion which, 
under many changes and reverses, has been the guide to our present 
cultivation, and which has the distinguished honor above all other 
religions of being the governess, or at least the nurse, of the most οἷν- 
ilized and ingenious nations of the earth. He therefore who would 
discredit it, has not taken a comprehensive view of it, or charges to its 
account those human follies which it had not sufficient authority to 
prevent. As to him who imagines that he can now go alone and stands 
in no need of such a staff—we have neither space nor leisure to dispute 
with him here. Let him not however cast away this staff with haughty 
self-confidence, but let him deposite it with grateful homage before 
religion’s altars. Could any one have derided the beneficent Deity in 


12 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


the temple of Epidaurus, when he was enabled to lay aside his crutches 
and depart without their aid? Is not the hand of the mother who 
taught us to walk, worthy of reverence ? 

What Jesus further communicated to his disciples respecting certain 
mysterious doctrines, cannot now be brought into view for the purpose 
of estimating the value of his religion in this respect, inasmuch as the 
different sects which bear his name are by no means agreed concerning 
them. We should be obliged to commence our inquiries with a con- 
troversy, upon which we shall not be qualified to enter until they 
have been brought to a conclusion. 

The observations already made, may enable us to judge respecting 
the usefulness of this religion in supplying the general need of man- 
kind, and respecting the importance which ought to be accorded to re- 
searches concerning the books in which it is contained. 


§ 2. Number of these books. 


Jesus of Nazareth appeared as a teacher in Judea under Tiberius, 
and was there condemned to death by the Roman procurator, Pontius 
Pilate. This did not however prevent his disciples from spreading 
themselves, not only in that country, but into other parts of the Roman 
empire, and even into the capital itself. 

An account of the remarkable part of his life and the doctrines which 
he taught is contained in the books of the Christians, which, in their 
opinion, were written by his earliest disciples. These comprise five 
historical books, viz. the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 
and the Acts of the Apostles, a book which narrates the progress of his 
doctrines after his death; and several didactic writings, viz. fourteen 
Epistles of the apostle Paul, and seven of other apostles. The fourteen 
Epistles of Paul are addressed to the following collections of the 
followers of Jesus—one to the church at Rome, two to that at Corinth, 
one to that at Galatia, one to that at Ephesus, one to that at Philippi, 
one to that at Colosse, two to that at Thessalonica, two to Timothy his 
assistant, one to Titus, one to Philemon, and one to the Hebrews. Of 
the seven Epistles of the other Apostles, one was written by James, 
two by Peter, three by John, and one by Jude. The Apocalypse, which 
closes the collection, forms a class by itself; it is held to be prophetic. 


§ 3, Genuineness of them. Internal proofs of the genuineness of the 
historical books. 


Are now this alleged origin and antiquity justly ascribed to these 
writings, or have they crept into such repute without sufficient reason? 
This is naturally the previous question, lying at the foundation of all 
other inquiries. If this be answered unfavourably, not only are all our 
former observations upon the doctrines and designs of Jesus ill-founded, 


1 Cornel. Tacit. Annal. L. xv. n. 44. Gronov. of. Sy F pf /$ 


SCRIPT URES OF THE N. TEST. 10 


but it will, indeed, be very difficult to discover anything upon which 
dependence can be placed respecting the system and objects_of this 
sage instructor. 

There are two sources of information respecting the genuineness or 
spuriousness of these writings; viz. Internal Evidence, and the Lesti- 
mony of ancient writers, who have mentioned them and_so,proved their 
existence, or have named their authors. 

We will first consider the historical books of the New Testament 
with reference to the internal grounds of their genuineness. 

Suppose a person should unexpectedly light upon these books without 
any previous knowledge of them, (the subject is treated much in this 
way by a late writer'), and, possessing the ability to read them, should 
open them—what opinion would such a man form as to their origin, 
antiquity, and authors, merely from their internal character ? ᾿ 

They are written in Greek, he would say, and certainly not in any Tow. 
one of the proper dialects of that language, but in a corrupted style of 5 > Q... 
expression and construction, which frequently so much resembles the ὁ 
Hebrew in the use of words and in grammatical arrangement, that one 
would think their authors were Jews who spoke Greek. They exhibit, 
too, so little learning and historical art, that it is plain they are the 
compositions of ordinary men, who, with the exception of some Jewish 
reading, make no pretensions to education or attainments in literature. 
The narrative itself is of such a character that, notwithstanding its 
brevity, the very air and features of the persons concerned, their attitude 
and motions, the part of the spectators, the expression of their coun- 
tenances, their whole behaviour, seem to be present before the eyes.— 
Such would necessarily be the language of one who, with no previous 
account of them, should pass judgment upon these books from their in- 
ternal character alone. 

And this is exactly what Christians assert respecting them, viz. that 
they were written by men of Jewish descent, who were all of humble 
origin and rank, without a learned education, whose knowledge of the 
events which they recorded was either that of eye-witnesses, or ob- 
tained directly from eye-witnesses. 

We may argue too as follows: Biographies of remarkable men always , 
present a more or less complete picture of their age and country, the 
state of civil affairs and of manners, and other circumstances under 
which they appeared, with which their life was surrounded and their 
actions came in contact. In proportion to the intimacy of the acquain- 
tance we possess with all these peculiarities and circumstances, and 
with the whole picture of the age, we are able to discern whether the , 
writers had seen those days to which their narrative pertains, or how 
remotely they lived from them. The truth on this point is the more 
strikingly manifest, the more the biography enters into details, and the 
more numerous and delicate are the relations under which the per- 
sonage, who is its subject, appears. 

In this view, especial importance attaches itself to the labors of those 
learned men who investigate the political state of the country in which 


1 Gottfried Less, Ueber die Religion, ihre Geschichte und Bestitigung. 
I. Th. 11. Abschn. ὃ 28. 


Mat 2.4 


7:38, 6:7, 


14 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


Jesus appeared; examine into its social condition and civil regulations ; 
collect together contemporary events which had a more or less close 
relation to N. T. occurrences and are incidentally referred to in the 
narrative; and further, seek out the historical personages who bore a 
part in the events of the time, particularly in Palestine, and gather to- 
gether the traces of their lives and character to be found in ancient 
authors, in order to try the historical books of the New Testament 
by these data, and to put to the proof the qualifications of their 
authors.! 

Now the N. T. writers everywhere evince an uncommonly accurate 
knowledge of affairs, and a degree of intimacy with the period to which 
Christ belongs, such as could be possessed only by contemporaries. 

The more one descends to particulars on this point and observes the 
development of the opinions, customs, and manners peculiar to this 
period, in the discourse and actions of the individuals introduced, the 
more absolutely convinced must he become, that the authors of these 
books themselves passed their days in the midst of these very c'rcum- 
stances. 

On these circumstances depends Christ’s conduct as a moral teacher. 
The demeanour of others towards him and their treatment of him spring 
from these ; and the descriptions of his solitary situations depend ulti- 
mately for their fidelity upon these. 

If he falls in company with Pharisees, the mutual deportment of the 
parties, the truths he presents to view and his application of them, all 


$6, }2'23must be regulated on very different, principles from those which guide 
~3],22:34 when he converses with Sadducees*or enters into their society. When 
k.7:3~13 he meets with Samaritans; another chain of ideas commences, other 


13,/0,b. 


nA22:23 


-/$-4 circumstances come into operation which give character to his inter- 


course with them. -If he stands among his disciples and addresses the 
common people, he has to deal with still other hopes, desires, and pre- 
judices, with other moral qualities, and his discourse must run through 
another circle of thought. In conduct too they must appear a different 


κ᾿ 23:|- 4 people; on one side, with hearts open to the reception of truth, zealous 
Att /%,1420d pious—but on the other, rash, easily inflamed, furious in their re- 


10,6 


/ 4.43, 


:7--- 2 


ligion, and forward to adopt violent measures without regard to con- 
sequences. 

Now when we gather all from ancient authors that we can find 
which affords us any light on these points, and then apply it to parti- 
cular cases in the N. T., we find ourselves, in the more trifling as well 
as in the main incidents, constantly carried back into the circumstances 
of these days. The Pharisees and Sadducees really appeared and 
thought just as we see them in these books; such were the prejudices 
of the Samaritans, such the mutual ill-will between the Jews and them- 
selves; such was the spirit of the common people; and their character 
lives and moves in the N. T. just as it presents itself in the history of 


1 The credibility of the Gospel History, or the facts occasionally mentioned 
in the N. T. confirmed by passages of ancient authors. _By Nathaniel Lardner, 
Lond. 1727, & second ed. 1733. In Latin; cum praef. Christ. Wolfii, Bremae 
1730. Also, A view of the Evidences of Christianity, in three parts, by Wil- 
liam Paley, in two volumes, 4th ed. Lond. 1795. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 15 


the times, fickle-minded, hasty and blind in their passions, showing 
themselves in relation to two different constitutions both strictly regard- 
ful of duty and completely lawless, and easily excited to tumult and 
sedition. 

So too with the foreign regulations and customs which were intro- 

duced into Judea, and gave a cast to the national condition, such as it 
never had before even in the time of Herod the Great, and never again 
wore. The vexing census exhibits all the freshly-awakened theocratic 
fancies of the Jews, and paints their feelings towards the Romans, just 
as they actually were.! The precept in respect to reconciliation (Matt. 
5:25. Luke 12: 58) has circumstantial reference to the Roman law 
de injuriis, by which the complainant was empowered, without the ne- 
cessity of a summons by the magistrate, to drag the offender with his 
own hand to the judge, in jus rapit. On the way thither he had op- 
portunity to make a composition, transactio; but if this was not effected, 
a fine was imposed upon him, and, if unable to pay it, he remained in 
close confinement until it was discharged.” 

When Jesus converses or associates with publicans, throughout the 
whole scene the Roman farming-system and its oppressions are pre- 
sented to our view. Again when he drives the money-changers out of 
the temple with scourges, we notice the consequences of Roman 
supremacy and the influence of foreign manners ; for the argentarit of 
Rome were accustomed to set up their tables, mensas, near the statues £3. holy 
of the gods, at the feet of Janus (Horat. Epis. Lib. I. Ep. 12), in the 1 10 
most sacred places, in porticibus basilicarum, and near the temples,/~’ 
pone edem Castoris.2 We remark also the Roman toleration which 
permitted no violation of the temples and religions of other nations, and 
under the sanction of which a private Jew vindicated without oppo- 
sition the sacred character of his Temple, which at Rome no laws 
could protect from desecration. 

The parable Matt. 18: 23 presents to view a king or tetrarch, who 
as to himself and his own affairs was not subject to the Roman juris- 
diction, and therefore proceeds according to the ancient Jewish law. 
But the sequel which relates to a private person is represented in ac- 
cordance with the Roman statutes against the oberatos, by which the 
debtor who became insolvent was given up to the creditor, addicebatur. 
The latter then bound him, in nervum ducebat, and kept him in his 
house as a prisoner, wholly at his arbitrary disposal. The rigour of this 
statute was, it is true, somewhat mitigated per legem Poeteliam, but 
afterwards. and in the days of which we are speaking, the ancient se- 
verity had again revived, as it appears in this moral fiction.* 


Pai Aw 


1 Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. If. c. 12. p. 727. Ed. Basil. or according to Haver- 
a ri L. If. ¢. 8.7,Compare Antiq. L. XVIII. c. I. n. 6. also L. ΧΡΉ. 
6-- 3: υ-“4: 

2 Heineccii antiqq. jur. Rom. illustr. Lib. IV. Tit. 4. n.1.seqq. Compare 
with Lib. IV. Tit 6. n. 14 & 16. 

3 Symbol. Litt. Bremens. T. J. N. Funccii Dissertatio de hominib. in foro 
Rom. nequam. (It is more than possible that Horace in the passage alluded to bide 
refers to a street which was called Janus, and not to any statue of Janus. Οοῃ- “— 
pare Horat. Sat. 11. 3. 18°- Cicero. Phil. VI. 5.—Tr.) ; ΔΛ. 7)4 

4 Compare Drackenborch’s note on Tit. Liv. L. VIII. c. 38. Gellius Noct. 
Att. L. XX. c. 4. p. 282. Aldi Manut. Tacit. Annal. III. c. 60. 

oes 


16 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


This blending of customs and manners obtained in innumerable 
other things. Take for example the various kinds of money. We 
meet at one time with Greek, at another with Roman, and at another 
with the ancient Jewish coins. But how accurately is this thing too 
adjusted, according to the circumstances of the times! The ancient 
taxes, which were introduced before the Roman dominion, are estimated 


olf Shela Greek money ; 6. g. the temple-tribute, or δίδραχμον (Matt. 17: 24. 


Joseph. B. J. L. VIL. c. 6. n. 6.) The offerings were made, also, in this 
money. (Mark. 12: 42. Luke 21:2.) A payment which is made 
out of the temple-treasury, is made in the ancient national pounds. 
(Matt. 26: 15.) But in business, trade, payment of wages, etc., the 
assis and denarius and other Roman coins are usually employed. (Matt. 
10: 29. Luke 12:6. Matt. 20:2. Mark. 14:5. John 12: 5. 6: 7.) 
The new taxes, likewise, are estimated in the money of the nation 
which then possessed the sovereignty. (Matt. 22: 19. Mark. 12: 15. 
Luke 20 : 24.) 

Writers, who in such trifling circumstances (which on any other sup- 
position would have been wholly overlooked) so exactly accord with the 
truth, must certainly have been personally familiar with them. 


δ 4. 


Our investigation might be conducted with reference simply to geo- 
graphical circumstances. The geography and topography of a country 
change from time to time, through the influence of active industry and im- 
provement, natural phenomena, politics, and arms. They are in a per- 
petual fluctuation, which, not only in a long course of time, between the 
greater epochs, but in shorter periods, causes striking alterations. 
Hence writers who attempt to delineate historical occurrences, the 
scene of which is laid at some distance from their own time, are ex- 
posed to many mistakes; and we can thus easily judge at what distance 
of time they were from the events which they describe. It was espe- 
cially difficult for the ancients to avoid errors of this kind, since they 
possessed very few properly so called geographical helps. The history 
of literature presents several examples of impostures, which have been 
unveiled in this way. We will not however notice these further, but 
will put to the test more distinguished and better informed writers, 
who have sometimes been guilty of similar inaccuracies. 

Glareau, formerly an ornament of the Freyburg school, contested the 
genuineness of Quintus Curtius, on account of the geographical mis- 
takes, which this author has committed. The ancients long ago 
pointed out a remarkable oversight of this nature in Virgil.1 Even 
Livy has sometimes, through forgetfulness, applied a later geography to 
events of ancient date. Thus he speaks of Sinuessa, Preneste, Arpi, 
instead of Synope, Argos-Hippium, and Stephane. 

The observation which we have the opportunity of making in this 


wnt ἥδιον, in regard to the life of Appollonius Tyaneus* would have been 


eT sf 
wk tes 
art 


LQ, 244. 


peculiarly gratifying to the ancient Christians. Philostratus¥ the phi- 


1 Aul. Gellius. Noct. Attic. L. X. c. 16. 


mam ὦ MP hiro. Pr ab eh tg 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. ‘ 17 


losopher, is its author, and pretends to have compiled it out of the com- 
- mentaries and records of Damis, who was not only a contemporary ofa) ay 
Apollonius, but his friend and his companion in all his travels* Among 
other things, the hero of this book appears in Babylon, and on this oc- 
casion a description of the celebrated city is given us, not a word of 
which is applicable to the period, for Babylon was then solitary and 5 ff 2: 
almost wasted, Selucia having long since absorbed its splendor." b He ν 
confounds the people of Sparta with the Lacedemonians, as though the 
two people composed one state as formerly. He represents Sparta as 
still a free state, while it was really under Roman dominion, and only 
the (so called) Eleutherolacones, separated from Sparta, continued free 
through the clemency of Augustus.” Is it possible that these are the 
accounts of an eye-witness and contemporary? [5 it not plain, that the 
commentaries of Damis are but a dishonest pretence; and that the au- 
thor of this biography by no means drew from the contemporary sour- 
ces of which he boasts ? 

Now if persons, who did not possess such extensive learning as this 
philosopher, affixed the names of older writers to their works, in order 
to invest them with value from their antiquity, what must have been the 
consequence? Just examine the history of the Jewish war, which passes 
under the name of Hegesippus the Jew. He lived under Antoninus and 
Commodus; and yet this work makes mention of Constantinople, Scot- 
land, and Saxony.° 

Difficult as it must generally have been for a historian, who had select- 
ed for his subject events of a remote period, to represent them in accor- 
dance with the actual geographical situation of the country, it would 
have been incomparably more difficult for a writer who had to treat of 
the occurrences in the Jewish state which took place immediately be- 
fore its dissolution, supposing him to have lived at a later time. The 
many changes which preceded this period; the dreadful event itself, 
which so completely effaced all traces of the city and its environs, that, 
in the words of an eye-witness,‘ it might be doubted whether they had 
ever been the abode of man; the subsequent commotions, which gave 
a new face to the whole country, rendered it almost impossible that one 
of a later age could do this. Add to this, that under Hadrian fifty 
important places and nine hundred and eighty-five villages and hamlets + 
were razed to the ground,® and then judge in what a predicament the 
historian was placed, who had to represent the country as it was in the 
days of Tiberius. 

The laborious collections, and united works of the learned on the 
geography and topography of Palestine at different periods, have placed 
us in a situation to judge how far the historical books of the N. T. pre- 
sent such a picture of the country, and connect with events such cho- 
rographical circumstances, as suit the period to which the events belong. 


1 Vita Apollon. Tyan. per. Philostrat. Lemn. Sen. L. I. c. 18. 
Mid. 1 ΤΥ eigen a 
3 Hegesipp. de Bell. Jud. Lib. IIf.c.5, and 1. V.c. 15. 
{4 Joseph. de Bell. Jud. Lib. VII. ο.1. 1. 
5. Dio Xiphilin. in vit. Hadr. p. 266. Hen. Steph.—8vo. Ed. Wechel. p. 974. | 
3 


eer 


18 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


Though these works and collections have indeed many chasms, and 
must necessarily have them, they are yet sufficiently complete to enable 
us with Certainty to detect and denounce mistakes, and determine the 
real age of such writings as falsely arrogate to themselves higher an- 
tiquity. 

All these learned investigations and comparisons may be regarded as 
a process of induction, according to which a perfect insight into the 
geographical condition of the period in which the events took place 
must be conceded to the historical books of the N. T. We will here 
put to the test a few cases, some of which we may perhaps contribute 
to elucidate. 

It is often the case that our historians, without expressly mentioning 
topographical or geographical circumstances, so narrate events, that 
these circumstances are involved in them and must be deduced by the 
reader. The more we learn in respect to places and their situation, 
the more plain it is that the narrative is always accurately regulated by 
topography. 

Jesus is led to Pilate to be judged; but the Jews would not go into 
the Prztorium, on account of the feast, lest they should be defiled. 
Jesus was led out to receive his sentence; and Pilate sat in a place 
called the Lithostroton to pass judgment. (John 19: 19.) The trans- 
action is represented as if this place was in front of the Pretor’s house, 
or at least at no great distance from it. And, there is, in fact, such a 
place, which has been formerly overlooked, in the outworks of the 
Temple. Mention is made of it, on occasion of an assault which the 
Romans made upon the Temple, on the side of the tower Antonia.! 
Here isthe Lithostroton ; and the house of the Pretor must have been 
opposite to this place. Now he lived, as appears from some incidental 
passages in Philo, in Herod’s palace.” This was certainly in this quar- 
ter and neighborhood, northwest of the tower Antonia and the Temple, 
so that the proximity of the Lithostroton to the palace, which is im- 
plied in John’s narrative, is perfectly accurate. : 

Peter and John went to the Temple: when they arrived at the gate 
called Beautiful, a man, who was lame from his birth and was daily 
carried there to beg, asked alms of them. They made him whole; he 
enters the Temple, and the people throng around him, astonished at his 
recovery. The Apostles afterwards enter; he perceives them in Solo- 
mon’s porch, leaves the crowd, and embraces them as his benefactors. 
(Acts 3:). Such a gate, distinguished above the rest for its beauty, led 
into the ‘Temple from the East,? and moreover, the Zroa «Σολομῶντος 
lay here on the East ;4 so that the several parts of the occurrence are 


' Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. VI. c.6 and 7. p. 868 and 869. Ed. Basil. Kat κατὰ 
λυιϑόστρωτον τρέχων κ. τ.λ. Haverc.c. 1. n. 8. 
5 2 Philo, De legat. ad. Caium says: Pilate had hung up gilded ensigns (of © 
which Josephus also speaks, Archwol. L. ΧΥ ΠΤ. ec. 4.) ἐν τοῖς Ἡρώδου βασιλείοις 
and immediately after says that this occurred in the Pretor’s dwelling : καὶ τότε 
μὲν 7] ἀνάϑεσις Ev οἰκίᾳ τῶν ἐπιτρόπων ἦν. Compare Faber, Archaologie der He- 
braer I. Th. 323 in the note. 
3 Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. V. ο. 14. p. 841. Basil. and Haverc. c. 5. n. 3. 


) 4 Jos. Archwol. L. XX. c. 8. p. 621 and Haverc.c. 9. n. 7 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 19 


not distributed to places incompatible with each other, but are adjusted 
according tothe actual plan of the edifice. 

Beth-Phage, a place insignificant in itself, and almost unnoticed in 
history, is often mentioned in the Gospels. (Matth. 21: 1. Mark 11: 1. 
Luke 19: 29.) According to them, it was without the city, yet not 
far from Jerusalem. It so happens that the Talmudic books have 
mentioned it; but very differently from the Gospels. According to 
them, Beth-Phage must have been situated, not without, but within 
the city. 

Sosays Lightfoot, a man skilled in this kind of learning (Chorogr. 
Mattheo pramissa c. 37); and he unhesitatingly places Beth-Phage 
within the circuit of the city-walls. Reland, who coald best have as- 
sisted us in this case, contented himself with censuring Lightfoot. 

In the Gemar. Babyl. or Mishnah Sanhedrin. (c. 1. § 3.) the fol- 
lowing question is proposed: What if the carcase of a dead person 
should be found exposed in the city? ΣΕ ὈΠΕΣΞ ΔΑΝ 2. The reply is, 
They should go and examine.—But if it were found in Beth-Phage, 
‘aD M32 78x72 and the inhabitants opposed their inquest, ought they to 
regard it as an insurrection in Beth-Phage? Reply : They should go there 
to examine. Here are evidently two cases opposed to each other: in 
the city, and in Beth-Phage. Yet Lightfoot was induced by the gloss: 
wat ἘΞΒ MbwTND FI Wen nam Pa ppd Mpa 5 π ὯΔ 
to interpret the passage differently, though not without violence: “‘ si 
invenerit synedrium considens in Bethphage δυο Nothing is said 
any where of a Synedrium in Beth-Phage. The word jNX7 is used 
with reference to Deut. 21: 1. 55m Nx7° 9D, i.e. if such a corpus de- 
licti should be found. Indeed the gloss, closely examined, does not 
signify what Lightfoot supposes. True, 5°25 in the Talmudic lJan- 
guage often signifies the inside; but the sequel would then be super- 
fluous. If it were within the city-walls, it would be understood of it- 
self, that it was to be regarded like the city: ‘Thus he might better 
have translated it: Bethphage locus est in conspectu menium urbis, 
quantum ad omnia tamen utebatur jure Hierosolymorum. Still less does 


the second place to which he refers, (Gemar. Babyl. Tract. Pesachim,) ~~ 


support his position. To the question, What is without the walls 1 
R. Johannan replies, ΝΘ N72IN>D prs. Lst must be understood 
both in question and answer: Extra meniaest Beth-Phage. So 
says the gloss in different words ἘΞ IX "N Dip, a place of 
those without Jerusalem. In the Mishnah, ( Tract. Menachot. c. XI. 
n. 1,2.) R. Jehuda maintains in respect to the question, whether the 
shewbread and the two loaves of Pentecost, which were baked in the 
courts of the Temple, might be kneaded without, Pima, that all must 
be performed in the Temple. In opposition to this, R. Simeon adduces 
a tradition that they might as well be kneaded in Beth-Phage as in the 
courts of the Temple. Far different from the fanciful interpretation 
which R. B. Maiemon gives, this passage only imports that it might be 
done, not only in the courts of the temple, but also in Jerusalem and 
in the adjoining places, which possessed equal rights with Jerusalem. 
The book ΞΟ, the oldest commentary on Deuteronomy infers, (chap. 
29: 35,) from the word ΠΣ that, on the great day of the feast, no one 
ought to go out of Jerusalem: compare Mishnah Tr. Megill. c. 1. 


20 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


n. 11. Yet he makes the exception, that whoever had come from Beth- 
Phage might return home and sleep there. 2715 nNx>2 22ND MEP 
75 bbw ὩΣ ΘΝ WN yaw Bw weHNn IA Ξ: TP δ πὸ 
: ἌΒΤΏΣΞ. All these passages separate Beth-Phage from Jerusalem : 
they fix it indeed in the vicinity of the city, but without the walls, with- 
in sight of them. From the query whether when Beth-Phage was in 
commotion, there might be said to be an insurrection, we may infer 
what was the importance of this place, as to size and number of inhab- 
itants. 

At Jericho curiosity induces the chief of the publicans to ascend a 
tree in order to see Jesus; and at Capernaum the Lord calls a publican 
from the receipt of custom by the sea-side to follow him. Both circum- 
stances are natural. 

In the great hollow which is formed by the mountains about Jericho 
grew the balsam, the chief production of Judea, and its principal and 
most abundant article of traffic.! From this place it was sent abroad, 
and here the taxes which were imposed upon it must have been levied. 
Thus the chief publican is in his proper chorographical position. 

The Pheenicians, and especially the Aradians, despatched their arti- 
cles of merchandise to more dither? countries, by means of the Jor- 
dan.2 Their depét was thus necessarily on the north of Gennesaret 
at Capernaum; and collectors of the customs would not be wanting 
here. 

Our Lord was at Capernaum ; and on the following day proceeds to 
Nain. (Luke 7: 1—11.) His fame spreads rapidly before him, in the 
direction of Judea ; he comes into the vicinity of the Baptist, (v. 17, 18,) 
and, still further south, into the suburbs of the Holy City, where Mary 
Magdalene dwells. Luke, we perceive, is describing a journey of 
Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. Now Josephus tells us, that, when 
the Galileans went on festival seasons to the Holy City, they: passed 
through the place called Nais, which lay on their route : "£908 av τοῖς 
Tad ἐλαίοις ἐνταῖς ἑορταῖς εἰς τὴν ἱερῶν πόλεν ΄παραγὲ ἑνομένοις ὁδεύειν 
διά τῆς Σαμαρίων γωρας, καὶ 200 ὁδὸν αὐτοῖς κώμης τῆς Nats λεγο-- 
- eens, (Ant. L. XX. c. 6.) Thus Jesus follows a route which would 

lead him through the little city, in which we find him working a bene- 
. ficent miracle. (Luke 7: 11-- 17. ) 

But Hudson and Havercamp deprive us of this passage in Πα. 
and alter the name of the place, because it is not written alike in all 
the manuscripts. ‘They read κώμης Tivaiag λεγομένης. But why 
ehange the text? Most manuscripts and printed copies have Nats; 
the other readings according to Ruffinus, are Neavais, Τεναὶς, “ἕνας, 
Τιναΐὶς. Now Λ'αναὶς is only a mistake ‘of the copyist in repeating the 
two first letters; and is easily resolved into Nets. Even Ζιναὶς and 
Τιναΐας originated from Ivais. Τῇ, as is often the case, the letter Z'of 
the article Ths (Nats) were half effaced, κώμης Τῆς Ναὶς λεγομένης 
would be read ; and the conjectures of the copyist in order to get rid 
of this γῆς would produce Iivaic, Tivaius, &e. 


1 Justin. Epitome pre L. XXXV.c.3. “Opes gentis ex vectigalibus opo. 
balsami crevere. +7. 6G. 

2 Strabo. L. XVI. p. 519. Casaub. 1787. Tov Avxov, καὶ τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην ava— 
πλέουσι φορτίοις, Agadio: μάλιστα 5. τ. A. 


‘ 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 21 


The second passage of Josephus, in which he exits the same: fact, 
is still more corrupt in its readings, (Bell. Jud. L. Il. ὁ. 12. n. 3.) Th- 
nav, 23av, Bav, Boov. As it can be explained how the former Itvatay 
became Γάμαν, so it is very evident how Naty might in rapid writing 
‘degenerate into Bay. It is known that in MSS. of the 10th and onward: 
to the 13th century ( is very similar to ν, and @ can scarcely be dis- 
tinguished from ot—The third passage which mentions this place 
(Beli. Jud. L. U1. ὁ. 3. ἡ. 4.) gives us the readings, Twvaias, Τηνίας,. 
Τινέας, Genania, all which, Ti-vaias, Im vias, In vavias, resolve: 
themselves into Τῆς 1¢ Nave. 

In order to get at the matter more fully, we must observe that the: 
doubtful place. was situated in the plain, μέγα πεδίον, on which the- 
province of Samaria bordered, (Ané. XX. 64) or in the ‘plain i in which gs. 6.7. 
the Samaritan country commenced. (B. J. 11. 12. 3. IT. 3. 4.) Reland: 
rightly distinguishes two plains of this description (Pal. Lib. I, c. 55.) 

viz. the weve “πεδίον AMeyevos which extended southward towards Sa-- 
maria, and the μέγα πεδίον πρός Πτολεμαΐδα which extended in a. 
northwest direction towards Ptolemais. Both met at the foot of Mount 
Tabor. But here, on the south of Tabor, at a small distance from it,. 
consequently at the entrance of the Samaritan plain, lay Nain. (Euseb. 
de Loc. Hebr. Naig κώμη... καὶ viv ἐστε μετὰ νότον Θάβωρ. In 
respect to its distance from Tabor, see the note of Vallarsi adh. 1, Opp. 
Hieronym. 'T. 111. p. 285, and Reland. Palest, L. UI. v. Nain.) Luke 
calls the place πόλις; Josephus only κώμη. But this makes no dif- 
ference: it is the custom of Josephus to designate small places, even if 
they had walls, gates, and fortifications, simply by the word κώμη. (Ant. 
XVII. c.2.n.2.¢.10.n. 9. XX.c. 6.n.2, B.J-1V.c.2.n. 3.6.8, n. 4. δ.) 

In Acts 8:26, the city Gaza is mentioned, with the remark that it is 
desert—avry ἔστιν ἔρημος. It is true, his) was often its fate; but it 
was invariably rebuilt, and was so in the days of Herod the Great, not 
Jong before the event ‘which is here related. Uncommon erudition has 
been employed to solve this difficulty; (Wesseling. Not. ad Diodor. 
Lib. XIX. c. 80.p. 5981. T. I. and ad Itinerar. Antonini p. 251 Re- ' 
landi Palestin. p. 786.) but there are two words in Josephus, which ~~ 
have escaped the learned, from which we Jearn how well Luke was ac- 
quainted with an event concerning which all history else is silent. A 
short time before the seige of Jerusalem, the Jewish revolution, on ac- 
count of the slaughter of the Jews in Cesarea, had assumed a decisive 
character ; and, in revenge, the Jews burnt or otherwise laid waste ἃ τ ὦ 
multitude of villages and cities in Syria and the vicinity. * Among these — 
was Gaza, which they destroyed (Bell. Jud. L. 11. ο. 33. p. 75. Basil. 
c. 18. n. 1, Havere. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ταύταις πυρποληϑείσαις, νϑήδονα καὲ 
Ταξαν κατέσχαπτον. ) (Thus it was really in this condition when Luke ? 
wrote. 

In Philippi there was a female dealer i in purple from Thyatira (Acts 
16: 14); and indeed there has been found amidst the ruins of Thyatira 
amonument which attests that this city once had such a trade which 
supported a distinct class of persons.! 


1 George Wheeler’s Journey into Greece, Vol. II. p. 233. French transla~ 
tion T. I. p. 116. Spon has given this inscription more correctly in his Miscel-~ 
Το κα Erudit. Antiquitatis, p. 113. 


ie 


‘ 4 


22 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


) _ATAOH ΤΎΧΗ 
ANT. KA. AADHNON APITN&R TON 
KPATISTON ETMTPOIION TOY SEB. 


ες τς SON KAI SEMNOTATON JEPEA TOT TIPO 
IIOAEOS OEOY TYPIMNOY 
Ol BAMELS. 


The book of Acts names a Proconsul of Cyprus; yet, it would seem, 
there should have been a Pretor there. In the division of the Roman 
empire, according to the plan of Augustus, Cyprus fell to the share of 
that monarch, and hence could not be governed by a Proconsul. The 
attetapts which have been made to solve the difficulty have wholly 
failed. Numismatics alone inform us how well Luke knew the affairs of 
the time. Some coins, with the image and superscription of the Em- 
peror Claudius, show upon the other side that at that time this alteration 
had taken place; they inform us of a Proconsul of Cyprus, who must 
have been the predecessor or successor of Sergius Paulus.’ In the 
centre of the reverse is ΑὙΤΌ ΛΩΝ, and, in a circle around the name 


of the island or its inhabitants, is the inscription : 


ay 


EM KOMINIOY IPOKAOY ANOTYILATOT. 


Paul arrives in an Alexandrian ship at Pozzuoli, (Acts 28: 11, 18, 
14.) and pursues his journey thence to Rome by land. The Alexan- 
drian merchantmen preferred Pozzuoli to all the harbors of Italy ; here 
they discharged their rich freights.2_ They entered the port in fleets 
and singly, the crews crowned with wreaths and in gay attire, and were 
welcomed with lively joy.2 Here the Alexandrians deposited their 
goods to be distributed throughout Italy. In conformity with the 
course of these vessels, Paul landed just in this port. 

Friends awaited his arrival at Appit Forum; and others at Tres Ta- 
berne. (Acts 28:15.) Now if he proceeded towards Rome upon the 
canal which Cesar had led through the Pontine marshes, on which he 
would travel more easily than upon the rough road which ran along by 
its side, he must have stopped, as here, at Appii Forum, which was the 
place of landing and embarkation.» Thus a part of his friends were 


1 Patin. Imp. Rom. Numism. in Claud. p. 101, who has not however happily 
explained it. Thesaurus Morelianus, sive Famil. Rom. Numism. ed Havyer- 
camp. in Famil. Comin. p. 108.—I_ have since discovered that this solution does 
not rest on Numismatics alone. (Dio Cass. ἢ. LIV. in Augusto d.523, ed. We- 
chel, τότε ὃ οὖν καὶ τὴν Κύπρον καὶ τὴν Γαλατίαν τὴν Ναρβωνησίαν ἀπέδωκε τῷ 
δήμῳ » ὡς μηδὲν τῶν ὕπλων αὐτοῦ δεόμεναι, καὶ οὕτως ἀνθύπατοι καὶ ἐς ἐκεῖνα τὰ 
ἔϑνη πέμπεσϑαι ἤρξαντο. ; 

2 Strabo. L: XVI. p. 798. Casaub. 2d Ed. 

3 Seneca, Epist. LXXVII. Sucton. in August. c. 98. 

4 Strabo, loc. cit. ν Ὁ 3 Ashe 7 

5 Acron. an Horat. Serm. L. 1. Sat. V. 14. “quia ab Appii foro per paludes 
navigatur, 4188 paludes Cesar derivavit.’’ Porphyrion, ad vers. 4, “ pervenisse 
ad Forum Appii indicat, ubi turbaesset nautarum, item cauponum ibi moran- 
tium.” Acorn. ad vers. 11. “ per paludes navigarunt, quia via inierjacens du- 
rior,’ 


or 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST; 23 


anxious to receive him on his landing. Ten Roman milliaria, or two 
German miles nearer to Rome was the stage called Tres Taberne.! 
about where the road from Velletri enters the Pontine marshes. Here 
there was not so great a throng, and there were fewer annoyances than 
at Appii Forum,? on which account the place seems to have been fre- 
quented by the better classes.* Thus this company, likewise, of Paul’s 
friends receives him at the proper place, and the whole accords accu- 
rately with topographical circumstances. 

The manifold alterations in the names of places which occurred with- 
in a short period, often exposed our authors to fall into mistakes, and to 
betray their age, if they lived at a later time. 

They speak of Sichem or Sichar. Ata later period it was called 
Diaovia Νεάπολις Συρίας Tladavoriyys; which is its name on coins 
after the conquest, or, likewise, D4 NEHA MHT'POMOA MOP- 
O44 So the Samaritans called it; and likewise Mufao0a, accor- 
ding to Josephus, and Mamortha, as Pliny says: “‘ Neapolis, quae ante 
Mamortha dicebatur.”” But our authors follow neither Samaritan nor 
Roman usage, but that of their own nation and period.—We some- 
times meet with Cesarea Philippi. At an earlier period it was called 


-Paneas, and later KA/SAPHLA ΠΡΟΣ ILANEION, on coins and 


in books. They however say, as was usual in those times, when the 
builder was yet alive or not long dead, Kasoaoeva Φιλίππου. Sodo 
their contemporaries.° 

The following case is still more important. The Evangelists speak 
of Bethsaida, when it had no longer that name. About the same time 
With Cesarea, it was enlarged and embellished, and called Julias. So 
it was called in Jesus’ time, and so our historians ought to have called 
it. Were they not aware of this? What shall we say then of their 
age? Itis precisely in this that they show the most accurate know- 
ledge of the affairs of the time. Philip had, indeed, very much embel- 
lished this place, and raised it to the rank of a city with the name of 
Julias ; but, not long after, Julia, from whom the city derived its name, 
was exiled by her own father. The wounded feelings of Augustus 


even wished that the world might forget she was his d ughter.® After — 


the death of Augustus, Tiberius, whose wife she had been, abandoned 
the unfortunate princess to the utmost wretchedness, and she died in a 
helpless condition.’?_ Hence during two reigns adulation was obliged to 
suppress a name, for the use of which, in other circumstances, it might 


| Jtinerar. Antonini. edit. Wesseling. p. 107. 
* 2 Horat. Serm. L. I. Sat. V. 3, 4, 11, 12. 4/46 
3 Cicero ad Attic. L. II. Ep. 11 et 13. 
4 Harduin Numm. ant. popul. et urb. illustr. p. 340. 


5 Vita Josephi, p. 630. Basil. § 13|De Bell. Jud. L. VII. 6. 3.7.5 7. 2./, Ek Hed. S04 


6 “ Abstinuitque a congressu hominum diu pre pudore, etiam de neganda de- 
liberavit. Carte cum sub idem tempus una ex consciis liberta, Phebe nomine, 
suspendio vitam finivisset; maluisse se ait Phebes patrem fuisse.” Sueton. in 
August. c. 65. 

7 Tacit. Annal L. 1. ἢ. 53. ‘Imperium adeptus (Tiberius) extorrem, in 


_famem, et omnis spei egenam, inopia longd tabe peremit, obscuram fore necem 
‘Tongitudine exilii ratus.”’ 


ee ee «{- AA ON em έν Ph. 
ve "» Reet νὰ aan on “ὦ, NP OD be ~— > ates 


SO NOT ee, «ἄκουα ’ arene ΝΞ 


i 


x 


* 


24 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


‘have theught to gain favor. Afterwards this name was again current, and 
‘appears in Pliny’s enumeration of the Jewish cities. It is by such inci- 
‘dental circumstances, which are so easily overlooked and the knowl- 
edge of which isso speedily lost, that acquaintance with a period is ful- 
dy -attested.! : 

But it is remarkable, it will be said, that John should have assigned 
this Bethsaida or Julias, where he was born, to Galilee, 12:21. Must 
‘the not have known to what province his birth-place belonged ?2* Philip 
‘governed only the eastern countries on the Sea of Tiberias; Galilee 
pertained to his brother Antipas. Thus, Bethsaida or Julias could not 
have been built by Philip, as it certainly was, or it did not belong to 
‘Galilee, as John asserts. A mistake of this character would indeed 
afford sufficient ground for the rejection of John’s Jospel. Julias lay, 
chowever, in Gaulonitis, which country was, indeed, politically separated 
from Galilee, but the wsuws loquendi of those times obstinately reckoned 
the province of Gaulonitis to Galilee. Now if John does so, it only 
‘proves that the peculiar usage of ‘the times was not unknown to him; 
‘he expresses himself as was then customary. Thus Josephus tells us 
‘of Judas the Gaulonite of Gamala,? and, in the next paragraph, calls him 
ithe Galilean, and in another work also uses respecting him the same 


‘expression.* We may hence infer, that in this case the custom of the — 


‘times paid homage to an older division of the country and disregarded 
the existing political geography. 

Is it possible that historians who, as in these few instances, invariably 
apply to the period so nice a knowledge of minute geographical cireum- 
tances, did not write their books until the scenes of the events had be- 
‘come undiscoverable, when not only their country was laid waste, but the 
national existence of the Jews was annihilated 7 


§ 5. 


The didactic writings, also, have internal evidences, or as is some- 
times said, the stamp of a certain period, as well in respect to matter 
as manner. 

As respects the matter, they possess a peculiar character as to those 
“subjects on which the feelings and ideas of mankind perpetually change ; 
‘or they contain local and temporal references to persons, manners, 
errors, and follies, which are different in different periods and countries. 

As respects the manner—in the arrangement and mode of treating 
a subject, in the arguments used to support positions, and in the style 
and costume. > 


1 Pellerin (Recueil des médailles, Tom. I. and II.) gives, however, some coins 


of Julia, and one of Julias, as belonging to this period. He was supposed to be 
correct, till Eckhel exposed the mistake, in Doctrina Num. Vet. Part. I. Vol. II. 
pag. 479, 498. Wes. 
2 Brun’s Handb. der alten Erdbeschr. Vol. II. Part. I. c. VI. Ρ- LVIII. 
3 Archeol. XVIII. 1, “Jovdas I'avdovirns ἀνὴρ ἐκ πόλεως ὄνομα Γάμαλα. 
, 41 XVIIL 2. Ὃ Ζαλιλαῖος Ιούδας. p. 549. De Bell. Jud. "IT. 12. ΡΤ 


ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας ὄνομα. According to Havercamp XVIIlI.c. 1. n. 6. and 
B.J. Il.c. 8.4 ; Py 


af 


” 7 


ae. i ae 


~ 


dain itt for — cet ow. WY yet : . 
"" / iia) 


Ψ 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 25 
6 


These considerations at present hold only in regard to the undisputed 
scriptures, viz. thirteen Epistles of Paul and the first of Peter and John. 
Of the others, of each separately, we shall speak elsewhere. 

As to the matter—these writings are not general compositions with- 
out loval fitness or any particular purpose. ‘hey were called forth by 
occasions, extorted by the circumstances of the authors, and are there- 
fore adapted to certain occasions, and to certain readers and their parti- 
cular wants. If now these books are supported by other remains of the 
period, if the picture of the times which their authors had before their 
minds when they wrote them possesses historical truth, then it is clear 
that their writings are not based on arbitrary and self-contrived scenes. 
The more minute this picture was, and the more accurately it was before 
their minds, the more necessary it is to suppose that they themselves were 
personally acquainted with the period. 

Now we find in the Acts of the Apostles several facts incidentally 
presented, respecting persons or circumstances mentioned in Paul’s 
Epistles, or affording incidental aid towards their elucidation. When 
such incidental hints are duly examined and those writings. are com- 
pared with them, an agreement is perceived between them such as could 
be expected only from letters which were, as they profess to be, inti- 


_ mately connected with these events.! , 


If we further remark the local weaknesses, vices and errors which 
Paul censures in his Epistles, and which they were meant to correct, 
as, e.g.,in Crete, Corinth, Ephesus, and compare them with those 
mentioned by Greek and Roman authors, who have incidentally noticed 
such traits,—we shail often make the pleasing discovery that Paul’s 
Epistles treat of exactly the errors of the time or local vices which these 
authors have sometimes delineated with yet deeper severity and satire. 
We shall have opportunity in the separate examination of these 
Epistles to fortify by proof an observation which we merely hint at here. 

Moreover, the general contents of these writings of Paul, Peter and 
John, are of a strikingly peculiar character. They present us with a 
peculiar system of morals and virtue,—not like the Jewish system, but 
one more human, more general, purer, more exalted. Nor is it that of 
the Greeks ; it is not the political and warlike virtue of the Romans; it 
is no Stoic or Academic virtue; and no sophistical and declamatory 
worldly wisdom. It is the system of Jesus as, according to the four 
biographical accounts of him, he presented and inculcated it. Hence 
their writers may well have been what they claim to have been, his 
auditors and his disciples. 

In the Acts of the Apostles we find doctrinal discourses of Paul and 
Peter, which exhibit their respective views of God and Jesus, of virtue, 
religion and Judaism. And these are of such a nature that they as it 
were form one whole with the contents of these Epistles; and letters 
and discourses together comprise a single theory, the parts of which 
are scattered throughout both. ater? y 


1 This argument William Paley has sometimes happily managed, in his 
* Hore Pauline, or The truth of the Seripture History of St. Paul evinced, by a 


_ comparison of his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles.” London, 1790. The 


argument, as he has stated it in the title, may be inverted. 


ma) 
i] hal 5 


26 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 
* 


That part of Christ’s instructions and discourses which most struck ~ 
John’s mind and of which he retained a more lively remembrance than 
the other historians, and of which his Gospel is made up, is also visibly _ 
prominent in his Epistle, as if, indeed, he intended to condense in the lat- ~ 

_ ter, for the purpose of moral instruction, the sum of his historical know- 
ledge. Evidently, the same circle of ideas, the same cast of thought 
and mental character lie at the bottom of both these compositions. 

It certainly is natural and just to judge respecting the age of literary 
productions, by a comparison of different periods. If now a competent 
critic examines the written monuments of the period when Christianity 
had gained a firm foot-hold, (which are merely some Epistles of Poly- 
carp, Clement, Ignatius of Antioch and Barnabas,) he cannot but see 
that these compositions, valuable as they certainly are, are far inferior, 
as to perfect and pure morality and in their general contents, to those 
ascribed to Paul, Peter and John; that the latter approach nearer to 
the spirit of Jesus, and hence may more reasonably claim to be assign- 

ed to his time. =k i 

Take too the oldest religious monument of the Jews, subsequent to 
the dissolution of their nation, viz. the Mischnah, which was compiled 
= from traditions about the third century, and we find the difference be- 
tween it and these compositions in respect to the dignity of the contents 
to be immeasurable. So much had the Jews degenerated, that we 
must go back with our Epistles to a better age, if the authors of them 
were men of Jewish origin. 

The manner, too, the peculiar treatment of the subjects, the argu- 
ments, the style and diction are characteristic of the productions of the 
time. : 

We find throughout, the Christian morality and religion, yet incul- 
cated by Jews,—not, however the Jews of the Mischnah, not in a casu- 
istical manner, in a dry, barbarous Hebrew dialect, in a style devoid of 
taste and elegance,—but in the Jewish-Greek dialect of those times, 
(when the Greek had already gained considerable influence, by the 
side of the native language of the country,) with an attractive but art- 
less eloquence, with an unlabered grace to which nature and the sub- 
hme JE, and not the schools,'gave rise. ὁ My 

ἫΝ st Their language plainly resembles that of Philo, and their style emu- 
big: ‘lates his; with this difference only, that Alexandrine wit, art, and 
Εν learning, and ἃ diction of a purer character, more free from Hebraism, 
distinguish Philo above the Jewish writers, who were educated in Pal- 
estine, and hence could have no acquaintance with the lecture-rooms of | 
the rhetoricians and sophists, or the precepts of the grammarians. 
Otherwise, if we except whatever is owing to the place of residence 
the Alexandrine Jew, we should, from the striking analogy in language 
and style, judge them to have been contemporaries of Philo. Let us 
in idea reverse the country and personal circumstances of each, and 
then imagine how each would probably, have written. > 
Pe + In particular, in modes of reasoning, which deviate from the usual 
Yb paths of argument, they so much resemble one another, that we might 

be inclined to suppose them to have belonged not only to the same 
Υ period, but to the same school, were it not that the learned Alexandrian 
~* discovers himself by the immodest freedom of his fancy, and the per- 


. 


¥ 


2, 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 27 


petual play of his wit. But they perfectly agree in this, that they never 
appeal to the authority of former expounders of the law, as was after- 


_ wards customary with the Jews: they always appeal. to natural prin- 


ἵ 


ciples and especially to the holy books of their nation. But besides the 
literal meaning, they extorted a hidden sense from these books. They 
affixed a representative character to persons and things, according to 
which, while they performed the proper functions of their own being, 
they represented something else typically. Or they made narratives of 
facts of use to morality by adlegorical and tropological applications. 

We may be satisfied of this by an example which appears very well 
suited to show the similarity prevailing between them in respect to sin- 
gular modes of reasoning. Philo maintains that science and learning 
are not themselves an ultimate end, but are only subordinate helps to 
virtue and self-government, to which, as the supreme ultimate end, they 
conduct. He wishes to prove this from the history of Sarah and Ha- 
gar.' Sarai, he says, signifies my government ; and it is virtue only 

which elevates me to government over myself and to royalty. Hagar is 
an Egyptian woman ; her name signifies a native, and as an Egyptian, 
she represents /earning : in both ways, therefore, she represents a fami- 
liar acquaintance with learning and science. Now Sarah is the wife, 
while Hagar is only her handmaid. Thus science is only a handmaid 
and servant, who must be subordinate to virtue, the higher end. _ 

Paul wishes to show the Galatians the superiority of the New over the 
Old Testament. For this purpose he makes use of an Allegorowmenon, 
as he calls it. Abraham had two sons; one by Sarah, a freewoman, 
and the other by Hagar, a bondwoman. But Hagar represents the 
law; for it was given on Sinai, in the land of the Hagarenes: and Sa- 
rah represents the new covenant, the Gospel; for a son was given to 
her διὰ τῆς exayyehias.2 Now as the relation of the Law to the Gos- 
pel is the same as that of the maid to her mistress, the children of the 
first, the bondwoman, are in bondage, while the children of Sarah, i. e. 
the children of the promises or of the Gospel, being born of a free 
mother, are free. i 

Paul pursues his allegory, and deduces inferences from it in respect 
to the abolition of Judaism, making such an application of them that 
he found no difficulty in establishing his position. Thus we are, like 
Isaac, children of the promises after the spirit, while the offspring of 
the law are only children after the flesh. But what saith the scripture ? 
Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for he shall not be heir with the 

ἢ of the freewoman. Now we are not children of the bondwoman, 
but of the free. 

In another place Philo treats this history in nearly the same manner.® 
Sarah, the mistress, bears a son, who receives his name from laughter, 
which is the expression of the joy accompanying virtue. But Hagar, 
i. 6. learning, bears a son, who Is a sophist, and knows not the wisdom 
of virtue. If now learning will not serve virtue, what says the Scrip- 


ΤᾺΣ fs ---------ὀ .-... “.... ὃς. 


1 Philo, De congress. quer. erudit. gratia. ᾿ 


2 The original reads ex τὴς &c. but a reference to the Gr. Test. will show that 
it is inaccurate.—Tr. . 


3 Philo, De Cherubim, at the commencement. 


dpe 


28 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF PHE 


ture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son. Hence sophistical sub- 
tilty, which only produces error, must yield to wisdom and virtue. 
Numerous other resemblances in particular representations, in the 
treatment of a subject, in the mode of reasoning and composition, have 
been discovered by the friends of biblical learning, and have been applied 


to the elucidation of particular passages in these Epistles; and time ~ 


and the scrutiny of the learned will bring many more to light. 

Since this spirit in the treatment, prosecution and exhibition of a sub- 
ject was prevalent at only one period, became extinct afterwards and 
has left not a trace behind in the Talmudists, the critic cannot but as- 
sign the origin of these Epistles, so far as he judges from their manner, 
to that age, which has given positive proofs of just such a taste. 


§ 6. 


" We have many remains of ancient literature of whose genuineness 
we are thoroughly convinced on no other than internal grounds. This — 


is not the case with the writings of the N. Γι: there is not even a single 
one among all the sci¢ntific productions of the Greeks and Romans, 


acs @« Whose origin and age are attested by so many testimonies, and by 


swriters of such a character, reaching up so nearly to the period to 


which the work is assigned. If, as is commonly supposed, these wri- 
tings were composed not long before the dissolution of the Jewish state, 
or soon afterward, (the earliest of them under Nero, the latest under 
Domitian) the witnesses, as far down as Diocletian, lived at most not 
more than 200 years from the close of this period, so that they could 
not but have possessed the means of determining with certainty in res- 
pect to them; and yet their testimony is now scarcely regarded in these 
investigations. 

For the sake of ascertaining how early the N. 'T. writings were in 
circulation among the Christians, the works of the oldest Fathers of the 
Church have been waded through with remarkable patience, and the 
passages which bear upon this point collected together. A certain 
Englishman in particular has distinguished himself in this commendable 


employment. He. was soon followed by others, who tested his col- 


lection by the most rigid principles and estimated it with critical 
care.! 

The results obtained from this collection in favor of the N. T. are 
well known; I have therefore determined to add to this proof a second 
which will remarkably corroborate the other and sometimes surpass it 
in cogency. The earliest ages of Christianity produced a multitude of 
sects who attempted to unite their philosophical and theurgical ? opinions 
with the Christian system, and often involved themselves in whimsical 


1 Nathaniel Lardner in his “ Credibility of the Gospel history confirmed by 
the testimonies of the Christian Fathers.’’ Chr. Fried. Schinid has freely made 
use of this collection in the “ Historia et vindicatio Canonis.”’ Lips. 1775. Gottfr. 
Less has amended it in a critical manner in his “ Wahrheit der Christlichen Re- 
ligion, 1768,” and in his more complete work ‘‘ Ueber Religion, ihre Geschichte. 
und Bestitigung,” I. Th. II. Abschn. ὃ 29 sq. Paley has at least made a better 


selection from it in his “ Evidences of Christianity,” Part. I. ¢. 9.. ὃ 1. ὼ 


2 This word Hug’ has formed from the Greek ϑεουργικὸς, which signifies 
respecting God's agency.—TR. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 29 


fancies, in beautiful and often ridiculous dreams. Even these sought 
to ground their positions upon the authority of the Biblical books, and 
to defend them against different tenets, especially those of the dominant 
church, Their writings are indeed mostly lost, and were intentionally 
destroyed, and we do not thank piety for it; but sometimes zeal in re- 
futing them has saved fragments of their treatises, and their opponents 
have preserved the arguments which they advanced in support of their 
opinions. I propose to collect together such passages, which will carry 
us further back into the antiquity than the writings of the Fathers of 
the Church who afterwards wrote against them. ‘These present the pe- 
culiar advantage of coming from men who had seceded from the adhe- 
rents to the common system, and broken off all good understanding with 
them. 

have granted a place here to those witnesses only, who belong to 
the second century, and have, indeed, admitted none who did not ap- 
pear till several years after the death of Commodus. They all appeared 
as teachers under that Emperor or at a still earlier period under the two 
Antonines, and their youth fell in the days of Hadrian and Ulpius 
Trajan, under the latter of whom the last of the Apostles finished his 
earthly course in extreme old age. 


§ 7. 


Before I approach my proposed task, it is necessary to premise some 
observations on the practice of the oldest christian writers of every sect 
in respect to biblical citations, so that we may not make unreasonable 
requisitions of them, and when these are not satisfied, make inferences 
which are regarded as principles of sufficient solidity to serve as the 
foundation of a system. 

I. They have always quoted the O. T. more carefully than the New; 
because they naturally could not suppose all their readers so well ac- 
quainted with the former as with the latter. Many of them even seem 
to have thought it evidence of erudition and literary display, to accu- 
mulate in their works passages from the O. 'T’., as, for example, Clement 
of Rome, Barnabas and Justin. This they have not done as to the 
New, which was better known. 

Il. They did not treat the historical and didactic books alike. They 
have seldom transcribed narrations, either from the O. or N. T., at full 
length and in the author’s words; and who would expect them to do it? 
But they have given them in their peculiar manner, sometimes remem- 
bering the expression of the writer and generally abbreviating it. 

_ In such cases the bare conformity of the fact with one of our Gospels 
is far from being proof that it was really taken from them. It might 
have been taken from other historical books; but the circumstances 
which are mentioned in them depend upon the individual representation 
of the original author, some of these being selected by one, and others 

| by another, or all being carelessly and summarily presented. Hence 
they are more definite means of recognizing a writer; and the style 
and choice of words are still more decisive. Now if we find, in ad- 
as to this, plain resemblances in Janguage and instances of a recall 


30 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


of peculiar expressions, so great coincidence is no longer attributable 
to chance, and we may with confidence assume that there is a citation 
of this or that book, with which everything agrees. 


- Ill. They have generally cited the didactic writings of the O. T. 


< verbatim, and the Prophets particularly with direct reference. This 


-- 


was natural; for who could distinctly recollect passages, so often re- 
sembling one another, even if he were ever so familiar with them? Or 
who would know where to find them, if the name were not given and 
the expression faithfully preserved ? 

IV. In respect to the Epistles of the N. T. their practice is similar; 
they usually cite passages from them accurately. They frequently even 
refer to their authors by name; particularly when they do not cite the 
passages in an exactly literal manner. 

V. When they quote moral principles and tenets, they often mind 
only the thought and disregard the words. Thus, e.g. Tatian in his 
“Oration to the Greeks” maintains the original condition of the human 
mind to be darkness, and alludes to the Gospel of John :_9 ψυχὴ καϑ' 
ἑαυτὸν σχότος ἔστι, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτὴ φωτεινὸν, καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν ἄρα 
εἰρημένον, ἡ σκυτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει... καὶ τὸ φῶς τὴν σκο- 
τίαν κατέλαβεν. nol 0 λόγος μέν ἐστι φῶς ϑεοῦ. Such is his proce- 
dure as to another passage which he has taken from the first chapter of 
John: ϑεῷ τῷ μόνῳ κατακολουϑήσατε, πάντα UN αὐτοῦ, καὶ γωρὶς 
αὐτοῦ γέγονεν οὐδὲ ἕν. (Or. adv.Grac. ὁ. 18 ὅν 19.) The first thing 
requisite in order to regard such a passage as ἃ citation, is agreement in 


_the thought. If there is still farther a resemblance in the costume and 


in the words employed, there is stronger reason not to regard it as a mere- 
ly casual coincidence. Yet even this will not be sufficient, unless such 
a form of citation, as was customary with the ancients when they refer- 
red to passages in the Bible, shows such not very clearly marked passa- 
ges io be quotations ; as, e.g. above, where a biblical sentiment and phra- 
seology is denoted by the formula xa! τοῦτο ἔστιν ἄρα εἰρημένον. 
These forms of citation are various and we shall lay no stress upon 
any of them before showing, as we will do in respect to the above, that 


_they were used for this purpose by the ancients. 


VI. One species of them merits a particular consideration. The an- 
cients have very seldom, when they refer to the sayings and doctrines 
of Jesus, named the books in which he is represented as thus speaking. 
They nearly always quote the person speaking and not the narrator. — 
Most of the citations from the Evangelists occur under the formula: 
“Our Lord says,” “Our Saviour declares” é&c.; and sometimes per- 
haps there is added, “in the Gospel.’ The name of the Evangelist 
very rarely appears. The writers chose rather to rest their point upon 
the legislative authority of our Lord, than upon the authority of his bio- 
graphers. 

I have said that most of the citations from the Gospels occur under 
this formula. This is evident at any rate in Irenzus, a writer of this 
period, and in the Fathers of the following century. We cannot be 
wrong, therefore, in inferring that under this formula others referred to » 
written documents respecting the life and doctrines of our Lord. If this 
phrase had not referred to familiar sources and such as were conceded 


‘to be authoritative; if it only referred to oral traditions, it would 


Ἕ 


eS” za 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 3l 


have been more definitely declared on whose authority an assertion was 
made. 
Now if, under the citation “‘ our Lord declares” ὅσο. the very same 


idea occurs which is in our scriptures, and with strong similarities in 


expression, the greater the similarity in expression and the more nu- 
merous the possibilities that. a difference in words, in their inflexion and 
arrangement might have taken place, the more clear it is that the pas- 
sage must have been taken from our books. All doubt, however, ceases, 
when, besides identity in the ideas, there is also an identity in the 
words, in cases where deviations were very easy. 

VII. But we must not judge of this identity according to the com- 
mon printed text of the Elzevirs or Stephens; it is not the proper 
criterion. The text, as we shall see more fully in its history, had, in 
the second century and in the beginning of the third, many peculiar- 
ities in particular copies, (as in the text of Justin, Ireneus, Clemens 
Alexandrinus and other Fathers) which have been removed by the re- 
visers of the third century. Hence, if we find discrepancies, they need 
not trouble us except when they do not appear in other: writers of the 
period or in documents which present’ a very ancient text. If they oc- 
cur elsewhere, we perceive that such discrepancies are only variations 
in ancient MSS. as they were at that time current. 

We now approach our proposed task, and shall prosecute iton much = 
more rigid principles than the preliminary observations we have just 
made require. 


8. 
. » δ 
CELSUS, σι. rev. 13/33 


A philosopher of the second century, of the Epicurean sect, composed 
a work against Christianity, to which he gave tie title 4Antag Aoyos. 3 
oa in his reply has rescued a considerable part of this work from φλά22--- 42. 
oblivion. 

In it the philosopher relates several circumstances which accom- 
panied Christ’s birth: he speaks in general terms of his miracles, says 
that he healed the lame and blind, and that he raised the dead ;_ that 
he was declared by a voice from heaven to be the son of God, and, after 


> 


choosing himself disciples of low rank in life, was betrayed by one of 


them, condemned to death by the Roman Pretor, was crucified and : 

rose again. The story of the passion and of the resurrection he has), 7 26:4 
treated more in detail and has related, many incidental circumstances, Yak. 1413 
such as, that he prayed the Father thatyhe would take this cup from ΧΗ 


him (L. II. ο. 94): that he drank vinegafand gall, and that blo&d flowed Wut. 27-4 


from his side (L. II. c. 36, 37); that he arose, but that the account of “jy 4) 723 
the Christian books as to this matter is contradictory, some pretending Y,, gz. 
that one angel, others that two were seen at his sepulchre (L. V. ο. 52) ; é] Io.19% 3 
that after this resurrection he showed the prints on his hands, but that F 


_ he really appeared only to one woman. (L. II. c. 59.) 


Moreover the philosopher speaks in various places, (L. VIL. 6.18, & 25. 7} Zz 14:24 
VII. 58.) of Christ’s doctrine of an universal Providence, which feeds~ 
the ravensand clothes the lilies; and likewise in regard to meekness 6] ¥- 12 .27 


# 


32 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


bt S. 3 3 under injuries, in which he commands to turn the other cheelf“also, 
eng 2 He has eriticised in a censorious: manner some of our Lord’s discourses, 
κι 8:85 that on the dangers of riches, in which he made use of the com- 
de [v1 ¢ Parison of the camel and the needle” or that which asserts that no man 
δ, 15:29 Cam Serve two masters; but particularly Christ’s prediction that false 
: ‘“° Christs and Prophets should come after him and should deceive the peo- 
2/1 £°24 ple by their impostures? (L. VI. ο. 16. L. VII. ο. 70. L. VIII. c.2 and 
ἐ /6-/3 7.1,.1|. c. 49.) 
24: 26 These accounts, particularly those which relate to the passion, were, 
73:22 Celsus asserts, recorded by Christ’s disciples. Soon after he says also: 
6c . 5a τὰ 
; “ All this have we taken from your own writings : for, we have no need 
of any other witnesses, since your own weapons are sufficient to destroy 
you,” (L. II. c. 74.) 

We clearly discover our Evangelists in these historical facts, which 
Celsus has extracted from the books of Christ’s disciples ; and all that 
is wanting to give to his testimony all that completeness which we could 
desire, is, that he should have mentioned the names or the number of 
the writers. ; . 

He has, however, very clearly distinguished twoof them. It was his 
opinion that those who derived the origin of Jesus from the first.man, 
.. and from the kings of Judah, were too bold; and the carpenter’s wife, 
τ a he further remarks, must have known of what high extraction she 
was.” Two of our Evangelists, it is well known, have introduced ge- 
nealogical catalogues into their works. One of them carries back his 
genealogy of our Lord to the first man, while the other enumerates 
the Jewish kings in their order, and declares them to be Christ’s an- 
cestors. | 

The account, that Jesus showed to his disciples after his resurrection 
the marks of his crucifixion, the wounds on his hands, (L. II. ὁ. 50) 
enables us to recognize a third Evangelist, who alone has distinctly re- 
presented this circumstance as it occurs in Celsus. (John 20. Compare 
i -- Luke 24: 39.) ae 
In which of the Gospels, but John’s (2: 18) is it recorded that the 
__ Jews demanded of our Lord in the temple, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, a sign to prove 
that he was the Son of God ?4 


fe | 


: ιν 
‘Where else do we find the assertion that the Logos is the Son of 


God, λόγον εἶναν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ 7 to which Celsus, or the Jew, whom 
he introduces as the accuser of the Christians, objects that he was 
% Ψ impure and unholy Logos, who had’ been ignominiously treated los 
/ executed,» i, 
‘The philosopher had seen at least four such writers; for he says that 


ΠῚ ἣ ὴ 
some spoke of only one angel’s appearing at the sepulchre, and others of 
’ pak A Ἢ - - —- 
ALT 6.18, and L. Th. ο. 16. τοὺς δὲ μαϑητὰς, τοὺς κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἄναγεγ-- 


ραφέναι περὶ αὐτοῦ τοιαῦτα. . 
2 ~ 
2 LIL e. 82. ἀπηυϑαδήσϑαι τοὺς γενεαλογήσαντας ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώ τονφύντος καὶ 
> ~ , Pe “ὦ Ms > ~ 
τῶν ἐν Ἰουδαῖοις βασιλέων τὸν ᾿Τησοῦν. καὶ... ὅτε οὐκ ἂν ἡ τοῦ τέκτονος γυνὴ 
’ 2 - > ~ 
τηλικούτου γένους τυγχανοῦσα 7. VOEL. 


3 L. Il. c. 59. καὶ τὰ σημεῖα τῆς κολασέως ἔδειξεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας, οἷς 


Ἷ a> 


ἦσαν πεπερονημέναι.. 
$L. 1. e. 67. p. 382" 5 ε 5.1. II. ¢. 31. p. 413. 


ΕῚ 


€ 
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 33 


two.! Of the writers of our books Matthew and Mark speak of one, 
Luke and John of two. ion me 

He also denominates the works of these writers, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, just as 
those which have been transmitted to us from our ancestors are enti- 
, tled. (L. II. c. 27.) 
ἊΣ) Thus much of the historical books. The critic will observe too in 
ο΄ Celsus traces of some of Paul’s Epistles (L. V. 64. VI. 12. VIII. 24.); 
but as he names no written sources, from which he took sentiments 
which are evidently Paul’s, but only treats them generally as Christian Ps 
opinions, we are not at liberty to presume any thing more than he ex- “ἢ 
presses, or to infer written sources, while he speaks only of opinions’ η 
and tenets which might have been known from oral information. 


TAartAaNAND Juxtius Cassian. a fy ἡ" 
: + Vee δι 
The former was a disciple of Justin Martyr; but his imaginatio andy] 557-- 
his melancholy propensity to a very austere life led him into errors and th, 16%- 
made him the founder of the Encratites. He discarded marriage, and“ " 
in atreatise of his, Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ tov σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ, fragments 
of which have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, he even as- 
serted that it proceeded from Satan. He also condemned the use of 
wine and meat. ὃν. A «“ 
Clement, in the 3d Book of his Stromata, 12th chap., gives us his te- 
nets in detail, and undertakes to refute them; the next chapter is devo- 
ted to Julius Cassian. * Swe 
He quotes from the beforementioned book of Tatian, On the perfec- 
“ay inculcated by our Saviour, a detached passage, in which he says, 
εξ He (viz. Paul, whose name immediately precedes) permits rimoni- 
‘al separation by mutual consent, for the purpose of prayer. But he 
permits connubial connexion only because of Satan and incontinency.” 
The passage to which Tatian here refers, τὸν ἀπόστολον ἐξηγούμενος, 
is 1 Cor.7: 5. He has given us the purport, which is sufficiently pe- 
culiar to be readily recognized ; but_he has not confined himself to the 
exact expression: συμφωνίαν μὲν οὖν wouoles προσευχῇ... πάλιν γὰρ 
ο΄ ἐπὶ ταῦτο συγχωρήσας γενέσϑαι διὰ τὸν Σατανᾶν καὶ τὴν ἀκρασίαν. 
Yet we see he has retained particular words of Paul; those, too, which 
_ were of especial importance. We will not examine particularly another 
“sentiment belonging to the Gospels, which he has introduced in this 
connexion, as to δύσι κυρίοις δουλεύειν, because it is presented in a too 
indefinite manner. Ὑ Mean % 
Clement now proceeds: “'T'atian concedes that marriage is allowed 
in the Old Testament, but not in the New; distinguishing between τὸν 
παλαιὸν ἄνϑρωπον καὶ τὸν καινόν." He then advances many argu- _ 
ments against him, intended to overthrow this position, as well as his 
principles in respect to eating meat and drinking wine; and then con- — 
tinues; “A certain one censures procreation as tending only to decay 
‘and death, and perverts the words of our Saviour: ἐπὶ γῆς μὴ ϑησου- 
οίζειν, ὅτιου ong καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, &c.” This saying of our Sa- 


-.. 


! 


Fe δὴ ogi Ν EE 
1 ΤΟ V. c. 52. καὶ μὲν καὶ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦδε τάφον ἐλϑεῖν ἄγγελον, οὗ μὲν 
» « ΓΑ J 
a, οὗ δὲ vo τοὺς ἀποκρινομένους ταῖς γυναιξίν, ὅτι ἀνέστη. 
- " ὦ 


.ὧξ ἃ 5 


͵ ᾿ 


> 


34 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


viour, which is worded in a peculiar manner, we find exactly soin Matt. 
6: 19, and in no other of the Evangelists besides. But who is this cer- 
tain one, tic, who thus perverts the passage? Is it Tatian, or one of 
his followers? It is not of much importance, but it is Tatian who is 
here spoken of. And as he makes his complaint here with the expres- 
sion τίς : “avuroezer τίς τῆς γενέσεως... βιάζεται tug... 50 he be- 
gins his refutation of Tatian in the same way. ‘‘ Marriage” he there 
says “ is not as reve¢ (some) consider it, an injurious fleshly connexion ; 
- There intend Tatian, who has taken upon himself to maintain this:” 
οὐ γὰρ ὥς τινὲς ἐξηγήσαντο ... Tatiavoy οἴμαι, τὸν Σύρον x. τ. λ. 

Soon afterwards he accuses him and his adherents of misinterpreting 
the words: οὗ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐχείνου τοῦ περὶ νεχρῶν ἀναστάσεως, 
οὐ γαμὸῦσι, οὐδὲ γαμίζονται. These are taken from the Evangelists, 
(Matt. 22: 30. Mark 12:25. Luke 20: 35,) and most exactly from Luke ; 
yet nothing definite can be inferred from this. Thus, out of the Gos- 
pels, only the passage Matt. 6: 19, and the passage from John which we 
have considered in No. 5 of our preliminary observations, remain to us, 

But we ought not to busy ourselves here with particular evidences ; 
we must turn to a great work of Tatian’s which promises us a splendid 
proof of the existence of all the four Gospels. We mean the Book ac- 
cording to the four, dca τεσσάρων. We shall need to be more circum- 
stantial in relation to this matter than would have been necessary be- 
fore so much pains had been taken to involve the subject in obscurity. 

Ephraem the Syrian composed a commentary on this work, which 
the Syrian writers sometimes mention and from which they gained 
their knowledge of the nature of the Diatessaron. Dionysius Bar-Salibi 
gives us the following account of it:! Tatian,” says he, “‘ the philoso- 
pher and disciple of Justin Martyr, formed of the four Gospels a single 
one which he called Diatessaron. St. Ephraem composed a commenta- 
ry on it; it begins, In the beginning was the word, ὅσο." 

Eusebius records respecting an offshoot of Tatian’s sect, which se- 
ceded from it soon after its rise, viz. the Severites, that they received 
the Law, the Prophets, andthe Gospels ; but that they reviled Paul and 
rejected the cts of the Apostles. Their former leader, he continues, 
effected, I know not how, a combination of the Gospels, and called it the 


- 1 Asseman. Biblioth. Or. T. 1. p. 57. T. II. p. 159, 60. But it may be object- 
ed that Assemani quotes a passage shortly afterwards (T. I. 57, 58,) from Bar- 

_ Hebraeus, which attributes the book, on which Ephraem composed a commen- 
tary, to Ammonius; and therefore the matter is uncertain. Not at all. The 
Monotessaron of Ammonius was most popular among the Greeks ; but that of 
Tatian the Syrian, among the Syrians, in whose churches Theodoret found ma- 
ny copies and carried them away. (Haer. Fab. L.1. c. 90.) On the contrary, 
the book of Ammonius was so scarce among the Syrians, that Elias of Salama, 
notwithstanding his researches, could not get a sight of it. Asseman. Bib. Or. 
T. II. p. 160. The testimony of Bar-Salibi, however, is our chief reliance ; it 
is irrefragable. He wrote annotations on the books of the N. T. and particularly on 
the Gospels. In the preface he names the writers from whom he compiled his 
annotations, among whom Ephraem stands first. (Assem. T. II. p. 157, 158.) 
Now in his preface to Mark, he affirms a second time that Ephraem’s commen- 
tary was upon Tatian’s Monotessaron. (T. I. p. 57.) Hence this Commentary 
was not known to him merely superficially, or from the report of others, but 
from constant use ; so that he is perfectly qualified to speak decisively respect- 
ing 1t. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 35 


(Gospel) by the four, which is still sometimes met with. Thus far the 
historian.! 

Now, it is not at all problematical or uncertain, what he intends by 
the Law, Prophets, and Gospels, or by the expression the Gospels, nor 
what the people of his time, in accordance with whom he speaks, in- 
tended by them; and as little, what he meant by Acts of the Apostles, 
and by Paul. Thus it is pretty clear of what materials this Diatessa- 
ron was composed. 

In his account, however, two things must be distinguished ; the in- 
formation itself and its source. He says that Tatian had made a com- 
bination of the Gospels, which he called the (Gospels) by the four, which 
book was yet extant. This is the information. He acknowledges, 
however, with his wonted historical honesty, that he does not know the 
mode of procedure which he adopted in this combination. Consequent- 
ly Eusebius does not pretend to be himself surety for the fact of which 
he speaks, but only recollects some persons who, had the book or had 
seen it, and from whom he learned the fact. 

Thus according to these persons, whose information the historian 
was disposed to credit, a book of Tatian’s was extant in the 4th centu- 
ry, which contained a peculiar combination of the (then so called) Gos- 
pels, and bore the name, διὸ τεσσάρων. 

I know not what more could be desired for a knowledge of the fact 
or for its attestation, except it be that one who had seen the book him- 
self should have spoken of it directly. We have such a witness, who 
collected no less than two hundred copies of it. 

It will be perceived that I refer to Theodoret, of Cyprus in Syria. 
This Tatian, says he, compiled the Gospel which is called by the four ; 
but he left out the genealogies and other passages which represent our 
Lord as of the lineage of David according to the flesh. 

He characterizes the book in a general way; yet he preserves the 

terminus comparationis in the manner in which he gives his readers to 
understand its contents, viz. from its agreement or disagreement with 
something. From what then, did he suppose, that Tatian had taken 
away the genealogies? From what writings did he mean that he had 
removed some passages? From what books, with which his readers 
_ were acquainted, was the Diatessaron distinguished by these character- 
istics? 
It is by no means difficult to:supply the ellipsis. Even if we did not 
recollect what books, which Theodoret had, contained genealogies, or 
what the Syrians say of the materials of the Diatessaron, or what Eusebi- 
us says in respect to it, we should nevertheless presume that ‘Theodoret 
means to compare the Gospel by the four with the Gospels as they were 
read by himself and those of his own faith to whom he writes. As this 
is the whole difficulty and the only one in which his account is involved, 
we are now under no perplexity as to his meaning. 


2 L. IV. Hist. Eccles. Cap. penult? χρῶνται μὲν οὖν οὗτοι νόμῳ, καὶ προφή-“ κ΄ “66 
ταις, καὶ εὐαγγελίοις, ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ νοήματα γραφῶν. Βλαοσ-- i 
φημοῦντες δὲ Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον, ἀϑετοῖσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς, μηδὲ τὰς 
πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. Ὃ μὲν τοὶ γὲ πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς, ὃ 
Tariavos, συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ 010° omms τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνϑεῖς, 
τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν, ὁ καὶ παρώ τισιν εἰσέτε νῦν φέρεται. 


i ‘ 
36 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


The Gospel according to the four was, therefore, a ah ao of 
the four Gospels as possessed by Theodoret and his fellow Christians 
the Catholics; with this difference, that the genealogies of Matthew 
and Luke were wanting in it, together with some other declarations and 
expressions, which asserted our Lord to be a descendant of David ac- 
cording to the flesh. 

He now proceeds to represent himself as an eye-witness of the fact of 
which he speaks. This book, says he, has been made use of not only 
by his (Tatian’s) followers ; but also by many of the orthodox. I my- 
self found more than two hundred of these books in high estimation in 
our churches, all which I collected and removed, and in their stead in- 
trodegd the four Gospels.! 

te Jiterally otherwise this book presented the text of the Gospels, 
be ‘inferred from the fact that its authority has been regarded in 
οὐ πὸ judgment respecting certain various readings. A Scholium to 
Codex Harleian. 5647. (Wetstein, 72.) on Matt. 27: 49, where in some 
MSS. (e. g. BCL) after σώσων͵ αὐτὸν, there is this addition : ἄλλος͵ λα- 
βων λόγχην, ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλϑεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα, 
justifies this reading by Tatian’s authority, stating that, to x0" iozo- 
olay εὐαγγέλιον, the Gospel arranged according to historical order, con- 
tained this addition : ‘Ove εἰς τὸ καϑ' ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον “Διοδώρου 
καὶ Τατεάνου, καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων τοῦτο NYOOKELTHL, 
He 1}. 

Julius Cassian’s doctrinal opinions closely resembled those of Tatian. 
Some fragments of one of his works, περὶ ἐγκράτειας, ἢ περὶ aunts 
are preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus.* 

He, too, condemned marriage, recommended continence, and 1 main- 
tained that Paul himself ascribes the origin of this connexion to the 
first temptation. The passage to which he appeals is as follows : φο- 
βοῦμαι δὲ en, ὡς ὁ ὄφις Evav ἐξηπάτησε ν, φϑαρὴ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν 

amo της ἀπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν.3 This is almost word for 
word in the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, (11: 3.) He judged the act 
of procreation to be fitting only for mers men, and not to be conso- 
nant with the elevated dispositions of Christians. To fortify his posi- 
tion he quotes the passage : ἡμῶν δὲ TO πολίτευμα ἕν οὐρανῷ, ἐξ ov 
καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεϑα. The passage is the same as Philipp. 3: 
20, except that he has omitted the word ὑπάρχει. We do not discover 
from the fragment, as it is thrown out in a detached way in Clement, 
to what writer Cassian ascribed this sentiment. Yet, from the succeed- 
ing expressions of Clement we may infer that he must have attributed 
it to Paul; for he proceeds, av dug τὲ, ὅταν épyj—and again when he 


1 Theodoret Haeret. Fab. L. I. 6. 20. Οὗτος (6 Τατίανος) καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων 
καλούμενον συντέϑεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας περικόψας, καὶ τὼ ἄλλα, 
000. ἔκ σπέρματος 4αβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγενημένον τὸν Κύ ὕρεον δείκνυσιν .. . εὐρον 
δὲ κἀγὼ πιλὲ sious ἢ διακόσιας βίβλους τοιαῦτας ἐν ταῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμη-- 
μένας, καὶ πτάσας συναγάγων ἀπεθέμην, καὶ τὰ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀντεισή-- 


γαγον εὐαγγέλεα. 
2 Lib. III. Strom. ο. 13, 14, 15. Ed. Ven. Tom. I. Opp. p δρῶ. δά. Sylburg. 
Ῥ. ar , Seq. He mentions also a first book τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν ἐν him. L. I. Strom. 


\ 


3 L. III. Strom. c. 14. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 81 


says—and then adduces a passage from Paul in confutation of him.! — 
So, likewise, according to Jerome’s testimony, he perverted the words 
of Paul in Galat. 6: 8, quoniam qui seminat in carne sua, &c. as far as 
vitam aeternam, so as to make them discountenance matrimonial con- 
nexion.” , 

Thus, besides particular testimonies to the Gospels of Matthew and) 
John, we have proof from Tatian’s Diatessaron of the existence of all γ΄ 
the four Gospels, the genealogies excepted, together with some passages | 
respecting the human origin of our Lord ; and likewise o hat of the 
Ist Epistle to the Corinthians under Paul’s name. Cassian proves the 
existence of the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, by express reference to 
it, and also, as it would seem, that of the Epistles to the Galatignsyand 
Philippians in the same manner. Κ΄ 7 


¥ 


5 : 
THEODOTUS. “Ἐς Pr ca 1! 7Υ͂Ξ 


At the end of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus there is a treatise 
entitled: ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκα- 
Mag κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί. It sheltered itself 
from the ravages of time in the manuscripts containing the writings of 
this Father and was regarded as his own composition. To this circum- 
stance it probably owes its preservation.® 

If this were in fact a production of Clement’s, we should certainly be 
obliged to him for the pains taken in it to make extracts from the works 
of Theodotus; but I regard it as the work of a follower of Theodotus, 
who was desirous of making some Excerpta from the writings of his 
master, and selected those passages especially, in which Theodotus com- 
pared his system with that of the Valentinians. 

He therefore commences a parallel (§ 2.) between the doctrines of 
Valentinus and those of Theodotus, unfolding the ideas of the former 
respecting the Logos, as monogenes, protogenes, &c. as faras \ 8. We, 
however, ἡμεῖς δὲ, he says on the other hand, maintain that the Logos 
was in reality a God in God; that he existed in the bosom, i. e. in the 
idea, of the Father, and that this bosom first revealed the σωτήρ, Sa- 
viour. Out of this idea originally proceeded δι᾽ ἐνέργειαν the πρωτό- 
τόκος or first-born and the Monogenes or only-begotten, who is identi- 
cal with the former and through whose power the σωτήρ is efficacious. 
Further, faith is not one, but manifold, as, even in the spiritual world, 


1 L. III. Strom. c. 14 and 15. 


2 Hieronym. Comment. in Ep. ad Gal. L. If]. c. 6. v.8. Quoniam qui seminat 
... Vitam aeternam. Cassianus, (some read Tatianus) qui putativam Christi 
carnem introducens omnem conjunctionem masculi ad foeminam immundam ar- 
bitratur, Encratitarum vel acerrimus heresiarches, tali adversum nos sub occa- 
sione presentis testimonii usus est argumento, si quis seminat in carne, de carne 
metet corruptionem. 


3 This Treatise appeared in the first Greek edition of this Father, at Florence, 
1550. fol., and was reprinted in the subsequent editions ; but was first translated 
by the Dominican Combefis. The translation with the Greek text was after- 
wards incorporated by Fabricius into his Biblioth. Graeca, Vol. V. The trans- 
lator, who was otherwise a learned man, appears sometimes to have been wanting 
in the knowledge of facts necessary to this difficult task. 


- 38 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


there are not the same bodies, and therefore not the same perceptions. 
For spirits, even the Protoktistae and indeed the Monogenes himself, are 
not wholly without form and body, etc. (ᾧ 8, 9.) 

From the moment, when the writer begins to communicate his opin- 
ions, ἡμεῖς δὲ, but we—from § 8 to $17 and even farther, it is evident 
that ‘he belongs to a sect of the Gnostics. 

After detailing the explanation of the incarnation given by the Valen- 
tinians, as asserting a mingling of two different spiritual beings into 
unity, he very sensibly remarks against it, ἐμοὶ δὲ 0oxei—that spiritual 
beings unite not in essence, but in the developement of a they do 
not flow into one another, but they exist with one another. (δ 1) 
may hence be inferred how he imagined the union of God with man to 
have taken place. This too explains in a measure the 8th section. He © 
then closes this part of the discussion with an exposition of the 110th 
Ps. v. 3. to which he adds, ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἐξακούομεν. (§ 20.) 

As he shows himself throughout a determined Gnostic, so he is as 
determined an enemy of the Valentinians while exhibiting the tenets of 
Theodotus. 

In criticising the Valentinians, he uses, (δ 24.) the harsh expression, 
ἀγνοοῦσι, and (ὃ 980.) he even calls their belief atheistical, λέγουσιν ate 
oc, and shows, on the other hand, how correct was the opinion of The- 
odotus on this point. To understand this passage, it is necessary to 
read, as Sylburg has proposed, οὐ yao συνεπάϑησεν ὁ πατήρ. 

Strongly as he declares himself in favor of this teacher, he yet dissents 
(ὃ 33.) from his opinion ; but says here, our Theodotus, thus again de- 
a au the sect to which he adheres. ‘The manner, too, in which he 
dissents from him is so mild, that we cannot but perceive his respect: 
ἐστὶν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος παράκουσμα τοῦ ἡμέτερου" this was a misap- 
prehension of our master’s, or, he was wrongly informed. 

This obscure, and on many accounts difficult work, is therefore the 
composition of a Gnostic, and a Theodotian, expressly ‘written in oppo- 
sition to the system of Valentinus. As to its plan, it contains only 
aphorisms from a larger Gnostic work. Hence the title pretty correctly 
expresses its character : “Extracts from the writings of Theodotus 
against Valentinus:” only, it strikes me, we should read, Οὐαλεντίνου 

κοινωνοὺς, instead of xara τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους. 'Theadatus can 
hardly have lived in the days of Valentinus, in which case only could 
χούνους have any sense. Others have proposed the word αἐώνας in- 
stead. 

So far we have been preparing the way ; and now we may avail our- 
selves of any advantage which we can derive from this work. 

In order to establish a distinction between celestial natures and to 
make out different classes in the spiritual world, Theodotus maintains 
that no being of the seven orders of spirits possesses so exalted attributes 
as the Son, Hence he remarks, καὶ ὁ μὲν φώς ἀπρόσιτον εἴρηται... 
a ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε, καὶ οὐς οὐκ ἤκουσεν, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ καρδίαν avdou- 
που ἀνέβη. The first part of the passage appears to allude to the 
words 1 Tim. 6: 16, ὁ μόνος... φῶς οἰχῶν ἀπρόσιτον, and the last is 
found literally in 1 Cor. 2: 9. True, he does not mention the author, 


=== ᾿Ξ: vas --- 


1 § 10. p.970. Ven. Edit. and Ed. Sylburg, p. 790. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 39 


and says nothing, moreover, of the sacred books from which he bor- 
rowed the ideas; but he uses the expression ἔρηται, a formula which | 

he employs only when quoting something out of the Old or New Tes- 

tament, (e. g. § 54. or § 19. § 42.) as Tatian, likewise, used it in such 

a case. 

These various spirits owe their distinction, in part, to the finer or 
coarser bodies with which they are enveloped. For even the ψυχαί, 
animae, (permit me to retain this phraseology,) have a corpus animale, 
whence the Apostle says: ὁ γοῦν ἀπόστολος, σπείρεται μὲν γὰρ σῶμα 
ψυχικὸν, ἐγείρεται σώμα πνευματικόν. Α little further on he quotes 
the words, ως δὲ ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰχόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέἕσωμὲν καὶ 
τὴν εἰχόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου, and remarks on them, πλὴν πάλιν eixove 
λέγει, but he here calls it again an image. A little after he observes, 
καὶ πάλιν, and again, ἄρτι βλέπομεν Ov ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὶ 
πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον. (§ 14. ᾧ 15.) These repetitions (and again, 
and again) must, from the nature erate case, refer to the first citation, 
6 ᾿“πόστολος, the Apostle says. And the three passages quoted are 
really found in this Apostle’s abet Epistle to the Corinthians (15: 44, 15: 
49. and 13: 12.) Also (in § 22.) the words καὶ ὅταν ξίπῃ ὃ ᾿“΄πόστο-- 
hog, ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ PR τ ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, are the 
Apostle’s, (see 1 Cor. 15: 29.) and ᾧ 44. he names the Apostle : Paul, 
says he, commands, ‘O Παῦλος κελεύει τὰς γυναῖκας φέρειν ἐξουσίαν 
ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους " He substitutes φέρεον for ἔχειν ; 
otherwise the passage is exactly so in 1 Cor. 11: 10. 

As spirits differ in substance, so do they also in intelligence. The 
ah ote archangels, and angels differ in their degrees of knowledge. 
Thi roves thus : big ὰ ἐπιϑυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι, ὃ Τετ- 
Qos φησίν, and further, κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον, τιμίῳ καὶ ἀμώμῳ καὶ 
ἀσπίλῳ. αἵματι ἐλυτρωϑθημεν. (δ 12.) He refers to Peter, and we find 
the passage in 1 Peter 1:12. He fe says, according to the Apostle, 
etc., and the passage cited is 1 Peter 1:19, with a slight variation, yet 
expressed so as to be easily and undoubtingly recognized. 

. He claims Pau/’s authority for a similar Gnostic dogma, which we 
have neither time nor space here to consider at length : καὶ ὁ Παῦλος, 
ἐνδύσαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνϑρωπον, TOV κατὰ ϑεὸν χτεσϑέντα. This he still 
more explicitly asserts elsewhere : καὶ ἔτι σαφέστερον nat duagondny 
ἐν ἄλλοις λέγει" ὅς ἐστιν εἰχων τοῦ ϑεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, εἶτα ἐπιφέρει 
πρωτότοκος πάσης xTLOE ως. Hence, he concludes, it is also said by 
him: ὅϑεν καὶ μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν εἴρηται. (§ 19.) The two first 
passages are in Paul to the Eph. 4: 24, and Coloss. i 15; the last is 
cited only under the formula εἴρηται, and consists of only a few words, 
yet we can recognize Philipp. 2: 7. 

After the separation of the elements, the Demiurgus created the or- 
ders of evil spirits out of the coarse wiaterial belonging to Aum, the 
mother of evil i in the world; and to this the Apostle alludes, when he 
says: do καὶ λέγει 0 ᾿Απόστολος, καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ τπινεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε. ‘Chis Paul says in Eph. 4: 80. 

In many things the Demiurgus succeeded but imperfectly, mostly 
from want of skill, having left nature to herself, because_ he knew not 
how to guide her. _ This the Apostle asserts : διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν ὁ ’ Anoo- 
τολος, ὑπετάγη TH ματαιότητι τοῦ κόσμου οὐχ ἕκων, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν 


* 


. 


40 i, AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE } 
ὑποτάξοντα én ἐλπίδι, ὅτε καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλευϑερωϑήσεται. (§ 49.) This 
is quoted with some small variations, loosely and probably from memo- 
ry; but is undoubtedly taken from Rom. 8: 20, 21. ἡ 
Hence comes that strife in creation, of which Paul speaks: εἰπὲν 
καὶ ὁ Παῦλος, νόμον ἀνειστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ TOU νοός μου. (ὃ 52.) 


ΟΡ] speaks thus in Rom. 7: 23. a 


But Adam, besides what he received in common with every creature, 
received through the angels the seeds of a better wisdom. Hence, the 
writer continues, hence he says, (φησί). This expression can refer on- 
ly to the author previously quoted, viz. Paul. ‘The words which he 
connects with this form of citation are: διαταγείς, φησι, Ov ἀγγέλων 
ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου" ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνος οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ ϑεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. (§ 
53.) They are found precisely so in the Epistle to the Galatians, 3: 
19, 20. 

Jesus, in order to meliorate the world’s condition, laid aside the πλή- 
ews: this is opposed to the κένον, as the Apostle says, ὡς λέγει 0 An00- 
τολος, ἑαυτὸν κενώσας. (ὃ 35.) This expression is found in Philipp. 
2:7. The rest of this passage, Theodotus has made use of in another 
place, as we have already remarked, ὅϑεν καὶ μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν 
εἴρηται. (§ 19.) 

From this Epistle, too, without express reference toa biblical book, yet 
in connexion with other passages borrowed from Paul, viz. Coloss. 1: 16 
and Eph. 4:9, 10, he has quoted, though with considerable freedom, 
the following passage: διὸ xai ὁ ϑεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν, καὶ ἔδωκεν 
αὐτῷ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ nav ὄνομα, ἵνα πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ, καὶ πᾶσα 
γλώσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος τῆς δόξης δησοῦς Χριστός. (§ 48, 
and Philipp. 2:9, 10, 11.) 

The epitomist of Theodotus, in various places, has referred to para- 
bles of our Saviour ; but so slightly and hastily, that we readily perceive 
him to suppose all to be perfectly familiar to his readers. In a similar 
way he treats historical narratives respecting our Saviour. We do in- 
deed find all these things in our gospels; but as they do not retain in 
the manner of expression any particular reference to our books, it would. 
be too hasty to conclude that they must have been derived directly ᾿ 
from them. 

Thus he refers to a discourse of our Saviour, σωτήρ φησι; in which 


, he speaks of one who had come back from a journey, after having was- 


ted all his substance, and at whose return a fatted calf was killed. Com- 
pare Luke 15: 11—23. And of aking who prepared a marriage sup- 
per and invited people to it from the highways. Matt. 22:2—9. Luke 
14: 16—23. (§ 9.) The narrative most resembles that of Matthew, for 
he calls him a βασιλεὺς and his feast δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου, which does 
not agree with Luke. He also mentions a story of Lazarus and a rich 
man, from which he argues that, even after the present life, we shall 
have bodies and limbs. (§ 14. Comp. Luke 16:19 seq.) Also an ex- 
hortation of our Saviour, παραινεῖ ὁ σωτὴρ, in which he speaks of first 
binding the strong man and taking possession of his armor. (ᾧ 52.) 
Comp. Matt. 12:29. Mark 3:27. Luke 11:22. The language accords 
most nearly with the first two. And also (ᾧ 86.) of virgins, some of 
whom were wise, παρϑένον φρόνιμοι, but others foolish, who hence 
were not admitted. (Matt. 25: 1, seq.) etc. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. _ ΑἹ 


Historical occurrences, too, he has treated in the same cursory man- 
ner. E. g. The arrival of the Magi, who saw our Lord’s star, and thence 
knew that a king was born. (§ 75.) And how a coin was brought to 
our Lord and he asked: τένος ἡ εἰκὼν καὶ ἡ Eniyougy, (ὃ 86.) which 
agrees with Matt. 22:20. Mark 12:15; and less with Luke 20: 24. 
And how he was transfigured on the mount before Peter Jamies and 
John, and they heard a voice from heaven. (§ 4. 5.) we ἂν 

In relating this last occurrence, Matthew uses the following: compar- 
ison, (17: 2. iy καὶ ἔλαμψε τὸ πρόσωπον αὐεοῦ ὡς ὃ ἥλιος, AOL TO ἱκατεα 
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευχὰ ὡς τὸ φώς, which occurs neither in Mark 9: 3. 
nor Luke 9: 28. This comparison Theodotus, in remarking how diffi- 
cult it is to look upon the Son of God, connects with a biblical quota- 
tion, which he ascribes to an Apostle : κατὰ tov “πόστολον. This 
quotation, is from 1 Peter 1: 19, and with it he immediately connects 
OU μὲν τὰ ἱμάτια ὡς φῶς ἔλαμψεν, τὸ πρόσωπον δὲ ὡς ὦ ἥλιος. (δ 19. 
This closely resembles Matthew, both as to the idea and the ninguage s 
particularly, as in some manuscripts of the Evangelist the word ἐγένει 
is wanting. 

He frequently quotes loosely from memory, or interweaves the words 
of the writer with his own. Thus (Ὁ 51.) the Savior says, 0 σωτὴρ λέγει 


\ 


—gopstotac δεῖν τὸν δυνάμενον ταύτην τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ σω- { 
μα ψυχικὸν ἐν γεέννῃ ἀπολέσαι. This is, in substance and in part lit- 


erally, Matt. 10: 28. He quotes it too in another place (ὃ 14.) φοβή- 
ϑητὲ (γοῦν λέγει) TOV μετὰ ϑάνατον δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα 
εἰς γεένναν ἐμβαλεῖν. If we may argue from the first quotation to this, 
it is certainly from Matthew. For he here says: γοῦν Aéyev—therefore 
he says, and to whom does this refer? Immediately before, he uses the 
expression, 0 γοῦν “πόστολος, therefore says the Apostle, and after he 
has finished the quotation and his inference, he proceeds, therefore 
he says, etc. Hence itis the Apostle who speaks thus. 

With the phrase, ὅταν οὖν εἴπη ὁ κύριος, he connects the following 


passages : My “καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν y μικρῶν TOUTwY * “ἀμὴν, λέγω , 


v iv, τούτων οἱ ἀγγελοιτὸπ ρόσωπον τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ παντὸς λέπουσι, 
μ 


and Μακάριοι οἱ καϑαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτε αὐτοὶ ϑεὸν ὄψονται. (§ 11. Ἷ 
The first of these assages is literally, except a slight transposition, 


Matt. 18:10. The ἕν οὐρανοῖς after ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν is wanting, as here, 
in all the ancient fathers and versions, and in some MSS. The other 
passage is literally, Matt. 5: 8. 


After his baptism our Lord went into the wilderness, where he was: 


among wild beasts and was attended by angels. (§ 85.) This circum- 
stance that he lived μετὰ ϑηρίων, among wild beasts, or, if you please, 
this figure with which he adorns the picture of the wilderness, is found 
only in Mark 1: 13; that he was attended by angels is stated in Mark 
and Matthew only. 

Our Lord brought peace upon earth as says the Apostle, ὡς φησιν ὦ 
᾿Απόστολος. (5 18) This Apostle is Luke ; for in his Gospel we find 
the words, εἰρήνη ἐπὶ τὴς γῆς, καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις. 2: 14, 

The quotation: τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ" (τὴν τοῦ σω- 
ματος τοῦ κυρίου λέγει... μόρφωσιν) δύναμις δὲ ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει 
σου, (§ 60.) agrees literally with Luke 1: 35. We perceive from the pa- 
renthesis: He is speaking etc., that he is quoting some writer: yet we 

6 


— 


Va 


τι 


42 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


cannot deduce his name or character, either from what precedes or what 
follows. A 

The Savior says, 6 σωτὴρ λέγει, λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν" these few 
words we find in Matt. ὅ: 16. Theodotus then proceeds: of whom the 
, Apostle says, περὶ οὗ ὁ ᾿“πόστολος λέγει, ὃ φωτίξει πάντα ἄνϑρωπον 


fi ἐρχόμενον ὃ εἰς τὸν κόσμον. (δ 42.) | This is in the a of John, 1: 9. 


--- 


Ὁ δὲ ἄρτος ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, φησὶν, ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν, (δ 18.) is from the 


‘same: John 6:51. The word φησὶν, he says, refers to the Son, of 


whom he has been speaking. Again, (δ᾽ 18.) the Savior says, ᾿Αβραὰμ 
ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵ ἵνα ton, τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, exactly as in, John 8: 56. 
It is also said, εἴρηται, ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος, καὶ 0 λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν ϑεῦν, 
and ὁ γέγονεν, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωή ἑ ἔστιν. (δ 19.) John 1: land4. TheCam- 
bridge MS. D. and some in Origen read sie: ἐστίν, as with Theodotus. 

Besides this tract, in which a follower of Theodotus has presented us 
an epitome of one of his master’s works, we have also in Epiphanius ac- 
counts of Theodotus, his tenets, and the arguments on which he based 
them. ‘These are indeed stated with considerable heat, but yet are, he 
asserts, drawn from his writings: τὰ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς απὸ συγγραμμάτων 
ἐλϑόντα EQOUMED. 

This Father of the Church has most assiduously represented certain 
arguments which the heretic borrowed from the Old and New Testa- 
ments, to prove that Jesus was only a man, in whom dwelt an Aeon of 
ahigh order. Among these, the interpretation which he gave to the 
passage Luke 1: 35, seems to me striking. He insists upon the expres- 
sion ἐπὶ σέ, remarking that, if the tenet of those called Orthodox were 
intended to be affirmed by it, it would have been : πνεῦμα κυρίου γενή- 
σέται ἕν σοὶ The epitomist of Theodotus, too, as we have before 
seen, (§ 60.) explained these words to express nothing more than God’s 
formation of the human body which he afterwards inhabited. In the 
epitome, a form of citation is used, viz. λέγει, which, however, does not 
determine who says it. In Epiphanius even this is wanting. 

He then gives us another of the Heretic’s arguments. The Apostles, 
says Theodotus, called him only a man accredited by signs and won- 
ders, αλλά, φησιν, εἶπον oi “πόστολοι. . . The words which he quotes 
are in Acts 2: 22. True, he does not say, ‘the Acts of the Apostles call- 
ed him a man, etc. but of “Anoorodoe. But that the Acts of the Apos- 
tles is meant by this form of citation, we learn from Epiphanius, who again 
cites it exactly in the same way in reply: ‘The same apostles relate in 

-the Acts, that the blessed Stephen said, etc. πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ ἀπόστολοι 


ὶ ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν ἔφησαν, ὡς ὁ μακαάρίος “Στέφανός φησιν, ἰδοὺ ὁρῶ 


. Acts 7: ὅθ. Besides, Peter only is speaking in Acts 2: 22—the ex- 
pression οἱ ᾿“πόστολοι does not apply to him; hence it must refer to 
the book in which this is related. 

Another reason for his opinion he believed he had found in the Epis- 
tles. The Apostle, he says, calls Jesus a Mediator between God and 
men: πάλιν δὲ προφασίζεται λέγων, ὅτι ἔφη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὦ Απόστολος, 
Ore μεσίτης ϑεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνϑρωπος “Χριστὸς ᾿Τησοῦς, λ. 
These words are in 1 Tim. 2: ὅ.3 


1 Tom. I. Opp. Edit. juxta Petav. Coloniens. L. II. Haer. LIV. p. 465. “466. Edit. 
Basileens. p. 202. 


2 Loc. c. p. 467. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 43 


He seeks to confirm this further from John 8:40, where our Lord 
himself says: ὅτι, φησὲν, ὁ κύριος ἔφη" νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ, A.) 

That it is possible to apostatise from Christianity he proves from Matt. 
12: 31. αὐτοῦ, φησι, τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰσιόντος, πᾶσα βλασφημία, A.2 

Before we part with Theodotus we will enumerate together once more 
the books*to which he affords testimony. Of Paul’s Epistles, are quo- 
ted under the formula εἴρηται, 1 Corinthians, Philippians and the Ist 
to Timothy ; and under the designation, the Apostle, or with the name 
of Paul, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Co- 
lossians. 

The Ist of Peter, once mentioning his name, and once under the 
epithet, the Apostle. 

He has shortly and summarily referred to several of our Lord’s para- 
bles, and to historical narratives, which we find in the four Evangelists. 
Also to some of our Lord’s sayings, in substance or literally as we find 
them in Matthew, Luke and John. He relates Christ’s abode in the 
wilderness after his baptism, in a merely general manner, but yet with 
a circumstance which is recorded only in Mark. Hecites Matthew and 
John once, and also Luke’s Gospel once, prefixing, the Apostle says. 

In the extracts given by Epiphanius, he appeals to a passage in 
Matthew, one in Luke, and one in John; under the designation of “ποσ- 
τολοῦ, to the Acts of the Apostles, and lastly, with the words, ὁ «πόσ-- 
τολος, to the first Epistle to ‘Timothy. 


Certain Anonymous HERETICS. 


The Heretics of whom we are about to speak belong to the second 
century, and are mentioned by Tertullian and Origen. Nothing is 
known of their names and as little of their writings. 

Tertullian says that some maintained an exoteric and an esoteric 
doctrine in Christianity and pretended that the Apostles communicated 
to their confidential disciples, besides the common doctrine, one more 
abstruse, and granted them a peculiar and profound insight into it. 
They drew their proof of this, he says, from Paul, who wrote to Timo- 
thy: Keep that which is committed to thy trust,” and “Ο Timothy, that 
good thing which was committed unto thee keep;” and also, “ What 
thou hast heard, commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach 
others also.”3 These passages are in 1 Tim. 6: 20, and 2 Tim. 1: 14. 
2: 2. 

The position of these Heretics and the arguments they adduced in its 
favor, are not indeed known to us from their own account, but yet they 
rest on a historical basis, on the, information of Tertullian, who con- 
futes them with muchearnestness. Probably it was the Carpocratians 


1 Loc. c. p. 463. 2 L.c. p. 464. 


3 De Praescriptione c. 25. Confitentur quidem, nil apostolos ignorasse, nec 
diversa inter se predicdsse, non tamen volunt illos omnia omnibus reveldsse : 
quaedam enim palam et universis, quaedam secreto et paucis demandasse. Quia 
et hoc verbo usus est Paulus ad Timotheum: O! Timothee, depositum custodi ; 
et rursum : bonum deposituin serva.-—Sed nec quia voluit, illum haec fidelibus 
hominibus demandare, qui idonei sunt, alios docere, id quodque argumentum 
occulti alicujus evangelii interpretandum est, etc, 


44 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


against whom the Father grew so warm; for the opinion mentioned 
was a tenet of their sect.' 

So with a similar account given by Origen, who complains that some 
had fallen upon false interpretations through ignorance of the logical 
rules of exposition. He then proceeds: Among these are to be reck- 
oned such as have wandered into abominable doctrines respecting the 
Creator of the world, from John’s words, I. Ep. V. 19: The world lieth 
in wickedness.2 It is known that the Gnostic school, generally, regard- 
ed the Demiurgus as a very imperfect spirit, who did not completely 
understand his work and therefore brought evil into creation. Now, 
although we are not informed what Gnostic sect was particularly pleas- 
ed with this argument, yet it is certain that the Ist. Epistle of John 
must have been in existence when such doctrines were built upon it. 


Marcron. 


Marcion was scandalized by the many Jewish notions with which 
Christianity was combined on its appearance, and which his age, prob- 
ably, knew not always how to distinguish rightly from the substance, as 
mere vehicles and auxiliary ideas. This Judaism in the Christian sys- 
tem, so offensive in his sight, he determined to destroy. He undertook 
to do so in a work which he called Antitheses, which was noted among 
the ancients and was reverenced as a symbolical® book by his followers. 
In this he showed that Christ’s moral views were directly contrary to 
those of the O. T.; and thence infers that the Jewish God, who is also 
the Creator of the world, is by no means to be confounded with the no- 
bler Deity whom Jesus proclaimed and whose Son he was. | 

Although he evinces much more intellect than most of the heretics of 
those days, he was yet not original in this opinion. Cerdo preceded 
him in this, as in his tenets generally ; having at an earlier period as- 
serted this contrariety between the two Testaments.* Some of his an- 
titheses are still to be seen in Theodoret,° and-if this latter writer had 
been more copious, instead of epitomizing others, his account of Cerdo 
would have been of great value, and would have furnished us some 
fine arguments for the Gospels. 

It would appear that Marcion went beyond his master in this matter, 
since he not only maintained a contrariety between the two Testa- 
ments, but even assumed a contrariety between the Apostles in the 


1 Irenaeus, L. I. Adv. Haeres. c. 25. ἢ. 5. 

2 Origenes, Tom. II. Opp. p. 23. Ed. De la Rue. Comment. in Genes. In 
the Ed. Colon. Tom. I. p. 16. Reprint of Huetius : Οἵτε παρὰ τὸ ἀγνοεῖσθαι τὴν 
ὁμώνυμον τῆς κόσμου προσηγορίας φωνὴν, ἐκπεπτώκασιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσεβέστατα φρονεῖν 
περὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ » οἱ μὴ καϑάραντες, ἐπὶ τίνων κεῖται τὸ, ὁ κύσμος ἐν πονερῷ 
κεῖται, ὅτε ἀντὶ τῶν περιγείων καὶ ανϑρωπένων τοῦτο ουτως ἐκεῖ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ εἰρη-- 
ται. οἰηϑέντες γὰρ κύσμον κατὶ ἀυτὴν τὴν λέξιν σημάενεσϑαι τὸ σύστημα τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ 
καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ϑρασύτατα καὶ ἀνοσιώτατα ἀποφαίνονται περὶ ϑεοῦ. 


3 This word is derived from the Latin symbolum, in the sense of confession of 
faith. Tr. 


bone ae L. II. Adv. Haeres. c. 27. Tertullianus passim. Epiphanius. 


5 Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. L. I. c. 24. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 45 


New. He found one proof of this in the Epistle to the Galatians, and 
accused Peter and his companions of Judaism.* 

Relying upon this contrariety, he charged a Jewish bias upon the 
writings of all the Apostles, with the exception of Paul, who has declared 
the abolition of Judaism without indulgence. For the same reason, as 
the ancients unanimously assert, he received of the four Gospels only 
that of Luke, who, as Paul’s friend, was least suspected of a Jewish 
mode of thinking. But as even this did not wholly please him, he 
struck out particular offensive passages and even whole paragraphs. It 
has become a serious question, what idea we are to form of this book : 
as such we will now treat it with the aid of preceding works which 
richly merit our thanks.” 

Epiphanius compared the Gospel of Marcion throughout with that of 
John ; for, before he wrote the books against Heresies, he undertook to 
oppose this false teacher in a separate work. For this purpose he was 
obliged to select from the Marcionite Gospel such sections or such par- 
ticular passages and such altered readings as would serve to convict 
Marcion of error, out of the sacred books which he acknowledged, and 
so far as he acknowledged them; and further to note the sections or 
passages which he had extolled, in order to prove from his system or 
on other grounds that he had shown himself an unskilful critic. 

The sections, passages and variations noted follow one another in 
the order in which they occur in Marcion’s Gospel; but the rejected 
passages, as they should occur in it when compared with our Luke. 
He has designated them by numbers, and presented 75 chapters, κεφά- 
data. These he re-wrote and accompanied with short notes, Scholia, 
in order to assist the memory, ὑπομνηματικὴ σύνταξις, and that he 
might have a foundation, ἔδαφος, on which to rear his intended work 
against Marcion. As he meanwhile dropped this latter intention, he 
enriched his books against Heresies with this preparatory labor.? 

It is evident that he has not transcribed at length the parts of Mar- 
cion’s Gospel which he found to agree with that of Luke, but has pre- 
sented them only in a condensed way, that they might be more easily 
inspected ; merely stating their agreement, and sometimes only select- 
ing from them such particular passages as seemed to him adapted to 
be used against the Heretic. 

A celebrated man has taken these condensed statements and allu- 
sions to be the actual text of Luke according to Marcion, and discovers 
in them another branch of the original Gospel for Christians not Jew- 


1 Tertullian. L. I. Adv. Marcion. c. 20. L. IV. c. 3. L. V. ¢. 2. 


2 Kichhorn’s position has given rise to three very good works, by means of 
which we have won firm footing on contested ground. Mich. Arneth. “ Ueber 
die Bekanntschaft Marcions mit unserm Canon des N. T. und insbesondere Uber 
das Evangelium desselben.” Linz. 1809. 4.—The following books have conduc- 
ted us still farther. Aug. Hahn, ‘“ Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ur- 
spriinglichen Gestalt—nebst dem Beweise—dass es ein versttimmeltes und verfil- 
schtes Lukas-Evangelium war,” etc. Kénigsberg 1823.—Hermann Olshausen, 
“ Die Echtheit der vier canonischen Evangelien aus der Geschichte der zwey 
ersten Jahrhunderte erwiesen.” K6nigsberg 1823. The dissertation on Marcion 
is a very able part of this work. 


3 Epiphan. Haeres. XLII. §. 11. 12. 


46 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


ish, as he considers the Gospel καϑ' “βραίους as the original Gospel 
which extended itself among the Jewish Christians. The brevity of 
the Marcionite Luke, as it appears upon this supposition, was to the 
celebrated Eichhorn the evidence that Marcion’s book preserved the 
primitive and original text; and on the other hand that the catholic 
Luke could be only an enlarged and amended one. This original Gos- 
pel must indeed have been very concise, since it could be contained to- 
gether with a Latin translation by its side upon three sheets, without 
filling them. When these xeqadaco. are examined, it is evident to all 
eyes, that Epiphanius has only given us general hints. The 13th chap. 
runs thus: while they were sailing, he fell asleep ; but he stood up, re- 
buked the wind and the sea. ‘This certainly isno narrative—can be 
none. Who were they that sailed? who fell asleep? what authority had 
he to become angry and rebuke the winds? and was there a change af- 
ter he had rebuked them? Look at the 23d chapter. He said to the 
lawyer, What is written in the law? After the lawyer had answered, 
he said, Do that, and thou shalt live. Why did this he question the 
lawyer? What had he replied which occasioned the admission, Do 
that and thou shalt live? The 44th chap. Of the rich man and poor 
Lazarus, how he was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom. ‘The 
45th chap. Mow is Lazarus comforted. The 46th. Abraham said, 
they have Moses and the Prophets; these should they hear: for they 
would not hear even one arisen from the dead. Who without the assist- 
ance of our Luke could compose a parable or complete narration out of 
these three chapters? And who does not perceive that the words “ Of 
the rich man and poor Lazarus,’ are only the title of a chapter 7 

Would any one, in writing out a passage at full length, subjoin, as 
Epiphanius does, chap. 24th, καὶ λοιπόν, et cetera? Or after repeat- 
ing the 5th chap. in the Scholia, And all the multitude sought to touch 
him; and he lifted up his eyes, could he have added καὶ ra ἑξῆς, and 
so forth, if it had constituted a complete passage ? 

As he thus gives only condensed accounts, we have simply the assu- 
rance, that the passage which Epiphanius read in his Luke, occurred 
in Marcion’s, and indeed at full length and without any remarkable va- 
riation in the reading: otherwise he would have noticed the rejection of 
the parts which were wanting, or would, according to his custom, have 
exposed-extraordinary readings, as corruptions. So far both were but 
one and the same Luke. 

Further, there is a distinct fact remaining, viz. that in Marcion’s 
Gospel certain chapters were wholly wanting, as likewise particular sen- 
tences and words from others. Were they excluded by him or have 
they been inserted by others? The ancients universally maintained 
the former; of late the latter has been asserted. His advocates want 
not a plausible reason for exculpating him. He has, as they correctly 
observe, suffered much to remain which runs counter to his tenets: 
now if he has left such passages untouched, it is not clear why he 
should have attacked and expunged others. 

This would be of weight, were it not evident from his Antitheses that 
he found means to put such a construction upon these passages, that 
' they did not embarrass him at all, and sometimes even favored his opin- 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 47 


ion. On this point we have the testimony of Tertullian, who was well 
acquainted with his writings and had penetrated deeply into his system, 
of which little knowledge could be obtained without great pains, on ac- 
count of its frequent obscure and enigmatical language. This writer 
the authors before mentioned with commendation have compared with 
Epiphanius, in reference to his testimony concerning Marcion’s Gospel, 
and have found them almost invariably agreeing as to the historical ac- 
counts and particular passages rejected and retained, as well as_varia- 
tions in particular words. ‘They have moreover collected out of Tertul- 
lian peculiar interpretations given by Marcion, by which he evaded the 
difficulties which he felt, and so accommodated passages at variance 
with his system, that they seem to be in his favor. For example, what 
could be more dangerous to his Docetism than the passage, Luke 24: 39. 
“Spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habentem;” he however 
merely assumed the word spiritum as understood : ‘‘ Sicut me videtis— 
spiritum—habentem.” (L. IV. Adv. Marcion, at the end.) 

A further ground which has been relied on for Marcion’s exculpation 
is the following. Passages are wanting in Marcion’s Gospel which to 
all appearance are not prejudicial to his tenets; on which account no 
reason can be seen why he should have suppressed them. The contra- 
ry, however, has been maintained, and the incompatibility of such passa- 
ges with Marcion’s system shown. Even the most embarrassing of 
them, the parable of the prodigal son, has been evinced to be inconsist- 
ent with his doctrines. The prodigal, although born under the govern- 
ment of the severe and just God, the Creator of the world, did certainly 
know in his heart the merciful Deity and turn to him while he was not 
yet revealed, or else the stern Kosmokrator exhibited himself in this 
instance as a good and gracious Deity, which shakes the foundation of 
the Marcionite system.! 

Thus nothing can clear him from the imputation of violent criticism : 
his arbitrary treatment of the Pauline Epistles testifies loudly and per- 
petually against him. Is it possible that these Epistles should have 
grown by degrees to their present condition? e. g. the Epistle to the 
Romans, out of eight sentences which Epiphanius quotes from Mar- 
cion’s Apostolikon ? 

Under what pretext did he introduce a peculiar text of Luke? Did 
he assert that a pure and uncorrupted copy of the Gospel had descend- 
ed to him from tormer times? If so we should find some trace of it. 

In his Antitheses he argues from the rebuke which Paul gave Peter 
for his dissembled Judaism, that the Apostles generally had a prepos- 
session in favor of Judaism; and indeed so far as to falsify the Gospel. 
(‘‘ Prevaricationis et simulationis suspectos gueritur usque ad deprava- 
tionem evangelii.” Tertull. L. IV. c.3.) It was the dishonest Apos- 
tles, who corrupted the truth, from whom the books of the Christians 
originated. (“ Inde sunt nostra Digesta.” Ibid.) He complains par- 
ticularly in the Antitheses, of the Gospel which Christians call Luke’s, 
as corrupted by the favorers of Judaism, in order to make Christ agree 
with the Law and the Prophets. (“‘ Evangelium quod Lucae refertur 


1 Olshausen, Die Echtheit der canonischen evangelien, 3d Absch. p. 207. 


/ 
48 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


penes nos—per Antitheses suas arguit, ut interpolatum a protectoribus 
Judaismi ad incorporationem legis,” ὅσο. IV. 4.)! . 

‘These corruptions then, according to Marcion, took place far back, 
and indeed in the very times of the Apostles, so that he debarred him- 
self from the pretence of having procured a genuine copy, whose trans- 
mission to him would have been more probable, had the falsifications 
occurred at a later period. 

Tertullian in his reply asks whether he does not see that the blame 
must then fall upon Christ himself for electing such Apostles, (L. IV. c. 
3.) and further inquires where the true Apostolorum instrumentum was 
to be found; if it had been Jost through these corruptions, it could not 
be possessed by Marcion himself. (bid.) This position he then leaves 
as though it were undisputed, and attacks him on another ground. He 
conducts the controversy with him as an emendator: Marcion was the 
first, from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, who had ventur- 
ed to step forward as an emendator of the Gospel. No emendation was 
needed ; his book could not be regarded as an amended one, etc.” 

Origen, too, gives it as the common opinion, that Marcion aspired to 
the reputation of a critic and emendator. Thus, when a malicious per- 
son corrupted one of his productions and excused himself by saying that 
he simply aimed to amend it, he replied that he certainly had amended 
it in the same way that Marcion had amended the Gospel.? 

The criticising spirit of the master extended itself to his followers. 
When the charge of innovation and an origin of yesterday was brought 
against them, they defended themselves by asserting that Marcion had 
introduced nothing new which tended to separate the Law and the 
Gospel, but had only restored the truth which had been long since abu- 
564... This medical care they continued to bestow upon the Gospel ; 
and proceed, as the author of the Dialogue against Marcion says, to 
this hour, completely to destroy whatever he left untouched.° 

They continue daily, says Tertullian, as they get into difficulty in re- 
gard to their positions, to change them; whence the Father of the 


1 Tren. Adv. Haeres. L. I. c. 27. ‘Semetipsum esse veraciorem, quam sunt 
hi qui Evangelium tradiderunt Apostoli, suasit (Marcion) discipulis suis, non 
Evangelium, sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis.”’ 

2 L. IV. Adv. Marcionc.3.¢.4. ““ Emendator sane Evangelii a Tiberianis us- 
que ad Antonina tempora eversi Marcion solus et primus obvenit, expectatus tam- 
diu aChristo poenitente jam, quod Apostolos praemisisse properdsset sine prae- 
sidio Marcionis ; nisi quod humanae temeritatis non divinae auctoritatis negotium 
est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat, Evangelia dum vitiat.... itaque dum 
emendat, utrumque confirmat, et nostrum alterius, id emendans quod invenit: et 
id posterius, quod de nostri emendatione constituens suum fecit.”—In reference 
to the other Gospels he says of hime. 5. ‘In quantum ergo emendasset, quae 
fuissent emendanda, si fuissent corrupta, in tantum confirmavit non fuisse cor- 
rupta quae non putavit emendanda. Denique emendavit, quod corruptum exis- 
timavit. Sed nec hoc merito, quia non fuit corruptum, rel.” 

3 Epist.ad Alexandrin. in Apolog. Ruffin. pro Origen. ‘‘ Videte quali purga- 
tione disputationem nostram purgavit, quali purgatione Marcion Evangelia pur- 
gavit.” At the beginning. 

4 Tertull. L. I. Adv. Marcion. c. 20. 

, ὃ Dialogus (Psuedo-Origenis) contra Marcionitas. Sect. V. p. 147. Wetsten. 
O γὰρ σχεταῖος ῥυδιούργεσας τὰ κατὰ Tov’ Andotohory, οὐ παντάπασιν ᾿ἀπήλειψε, 
καὶ οὗτοι μέχρι τῆς δεῦρο περιαιροῦσιν, ὕσα ἂν μὴ συντρέχοι τῇ ἀντῶν γνώμῃ. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 49 


church advises them, to change for once in conformity with the eight 
Apostolical books of the church.! 

We will now briefly recount the positions at which we have arrived. 
Eichhorn’s belief that he had obtained the Marcionite Gospel complete, 
in the titles of chapters and the extracts given by Epiphanius, and on 
account of its brevity, that he had discovered the first draught of our 
Luke and an original Gospel, was a mistake arising from prepossession 
in behalf of a favorite hypothesis. The defence of Marcion on the 
ground that he has not taken pains to exclude much that is unfavora- 
ble to his doctrines,—much less, then, what was of a different character 
—we reject, because it is known that by misinterpretation he made 
such passages consistent with his doctrines. The second ground, that 
it does not appear why he should suppress the portions which are defi- 
cient, is by late investigations so entirely invalidated, that it is evident, 
on the contrary, he could not have suffered them to remain without det- 
riment to his system; whence he comes under suspicion of the crime 
from which it is attempted to exculpate him. His treatment of the 
Pauline Epistles, however, convicts him of corruption. Neither he nor 
his followers ever pretended to possess a pure Gospel of the times of the 
Apostles; but only to have purified it from their corruptions. From 
a comparison of the Marcionite Gospel with our Luke itis evident 
that it was Luke which was disfigured and cut out by Marcion accord- 
ing to his own opinions. 

The reasons which led him to pronounce the Luke of the Christians 
to be a book replete with Jewish additions, he detailed in his Antithe- 
ses. (L. IV. Adv. Marcion.c. 4.) Must he not in the same work have 
given reasons for his rejection of the other Gospels? 

The first three books of Tertullian are occupied exclusively with a 
refutation of the Antitheses, in which the Heretic developed his princi- 
ples respecting the creation, and its author, viz. the Deity of the Jews ; 
respecting another Deity, the unknown and merciful God ; respecting the 
two-fold Messiah, etc. His tenets could be supported only by a com- 
parison of the sacred books of the Jews and Christians, whose contrari- 
ety gave him occasion to assume two primeval existences. But the sa- 
cred books of the Christians, he discovered, were not entirely conso- 
nant with his system ; for as their authors, blinded by their Jewish pre- 
judices, could not elevate their minds to the pure doctrine respecting the 
benevolent Deity, they therefore wilfully perverted it. But it was then 
incumbent on him to declare his Canon and to defend his rejections by 
argument. That he did this, in regard to Matthew, is clear from Ter- 
tullian’s refutation. 

The words of our Lord in Matthew: ‘‘ That ye may be the children 
of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the 
evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust,” 
(5: 45) were not suitable to be uttered by the real Christ. The just 
God and Creator of the world could not so conduct, and the benevolent 


1 L. IV. Adv. Marcion c. 5. Irenaeus appears to have had the Marcionite 
sect in his eye in the words: “ Nec fas est dicere, quoniam ante praedicaverunt, 
quam perfectam haberent agnitionem, sicut quidam audent dicere, gloriantes, 
emendatores se esse Apostolorum.” L. III. ο. 1. 


γ 


50 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


Deity would not be able to dispose of the rain and sunshine, works of 
the Creator of the world. So confused ideas respecting God must be 
falsely attributed to Christ. Marcion rejected the passage. ‘Tertullian 
says he had erased it, erasit; in another place he contents himself with 
the expression, dctrazisti, thou hast withdrawn them.' The word 
erasure is as current with him as ofedcCecy with the Greeks for rejec- 
tion: he even says of Marcion’s injunction of continence, “ materiam 
matrimonii eradit.” (L. If. Adv. Marc. near the end.) 

It is still worse in regard to the declaration of our Lord, “1 am_ not 
come to destroy (the law) but to fulfil,” Matt. 5: 17; in which the Mes- 
siah of the benevolent Deity very wrongly submits himself to the law of 
the Creator of the world. fe erased it, says Tertullian again; but in 
another place he contents himself with the word deny, negare.* True, 
this father does not mention this passage in his reply to the Antitheses, 
but in his 4th and 5th books against Marcion; however, he repeat- 
edly declares, that he reserved some objections to the Antitheses till he 
should bring the Marcionite Gospel under examination, and could more 
conveniently refer to it. , 

In his 3d book against the Antitheses, he opposes Marcion’s attack 
upon the prophecies of Isaiah concerning Immanuel, (7: 14.) It was 
essential to the heretic to deny the birth of Christ from ἃ virgin, 
which Matthew (1: 23) has corroborated from Isaiah. Christ could 
not have been born, inasmuch as in order that he might owe nothing 
to the Creator of the world, he went about in the mere semblance of a 
man. He therefore argued that the prophecy certainly had no refer- 
ence to Christ, who never was a warrior, and to whom what Isaiah 
says farther of Immanuel (8: 4), that he is to take away the riches of Da- 
mascus and the spoil of Samaria, is not applicable. To which ‘Tertul- 
lian replies, that Marcion need only restore the account which he had 
withdrawn from the Gospel of the visit of the Magi and their gifts, and 
all would be plain. And then he interprets the riches of Damascus 


1 Tertull. L. 11. Adv. Mare. c. 7. ‘‘Nolunt Marcionitae in eodem Deo ag- 
noscere pluentem super bonos et malos, et solem oriri facientem super justos et 
injustos .... Nam etsi hoc quoque testimonium Christi in creatorem Marcion 
de Evangelio eradere ausus est, sed ipso mundus inscriptus est.’’ L. ΤΥ, ¢. 17. 
“ Euge, Marcion, satis ingeniose detrazisti illi pluvias ac soles, ne creator vide- 
retur.” L.1V.c. 36. “ Est utique optimus, qui pluit super justos et injustos, et 


solem oriri faciens super bonos et malos, sustinens et alens et juvans etiam Mar- 
cionitas.” 


2 L. IV. Adv. Mare. c. 7. ““ Ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se, non 
ut legem et prophetas dissolveret, sed potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut 
additum erasit.” L.IV.c.9.at the end. c. 36. ‘‘Salvum igitur est hoc in 
Evangelio: non venidissolvere.” L.IV.c.14. ‘‘ Egonon veni legem dissolve- 
re,sedadimplere. Frustra de ista sententia neganda Ponticus laboravit.’’ His 
disciples went a step farther, and maintained that it should be read conversely. 
Dial. contra Mare. Sect. [I. p. 63. Οὐχ οὕτως δὲ εἶπεν ὃ «Χριστὸς, λέγει γὰρ οὐκ 


ἦλϑον πλερῶσαι τὸν νόμον, αλλὰ καταλύσαι. Comp. Isidor. Pelus. L. I. Ep. 371. 
Ed. Paris, 1638. p. 97. 


3 L. III. Adv. Marc. c. 11. ‘‘ Nune ut haec omnia ad Evangelii distulerim ex- 
aminationem.” L,. IV.c. 1. “ Sed et istas (Antitheses) proprio congressu com- 
inus, id est, per singulas injectiones Pontici caecidissem, si non multo opportuni- 
us in ipso etcum ipso Evangelio, cui procurant, retunderentur.” L. I. ¢. 15 
“‘ Videbimus, si et ad Apostolorum vestrum discutiendum pervenerimus.” 


4 Tert. L. III. Adv. Marc. ο. 12. 13. “ Provoca nunc, ut soles, ad hanc Esaiae 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 51 


-and the spoil of Samaria, as referring to the gifts of the wise men. 
The story is too familiar for us to inquire from what Gospel Marcion 
had withdrawn it. 

The language of Marcion respecting the commencement of the Gos- 
pels of Matthew and Luke, which Tertullian in another place (De car- 
ne Christi, c. 2.) quotes from him and turns to ridicule, may be here 
noticed: “Quid illi cum angelo creatoris? et in uterum conceptus in- 
ducitur ; quid cum Esaia propheta creatoris ?—Aufer, inquit, molestos 
semper Caesaris census, et diversoria angusta—Magi ne fatigentur de 
longinquo—Melior sit Herodes, ne Jeremias glorietur,” etc. 

These are some of the reasons that have reached us, by which he jus- 
tified his rejection of Matthew. Whether he entered into as much de- 
tail in respect to other books, or rejected them in toto, on account of 
their Jewish errors, is not known. Itis clear from Tertullian that a 
similar fate befel several books of the N. T., as e. g. the Gospel of John 
and the Apocalypse. If thou hadst not, says he, intentionally, de in- 
dustrid, rejected or corrupted the Scriptures which gainsay thine opin- 
ions, the Gospel of John would have taught thee differently respecting 
the apparent human body ; confudisset te in hac specie Evangelium Jo- 
annis, pracdicans spiritum columbae corpore delapsum.” (De carne 
Christi, c. 3.) But here his memory or a false reading deceived this 
father of the church; for no known MS. reads ἐν owmare περιστερᾶς 
in the passage, John 1:32. Of the Apocalypse he says; ‘“‘ Wam etsi 
Apocalypsin gus Marcion respuiti—in Johannem tamen stabit aucto- 
rem.” (L. IV. Adv. Marc. c. 5.) He makes the same complaint as to 
the Acts of the Apostles. In this book Paul is recognized as an 
apostle, and he in turn confirms the statements of the Acts of the Apos- 
tles. It is therefore plain, for what reason it was rejected: ‘‘ Cur ea 
respuatis jam apparet;’’ viz., because it does not distinguish God and the 
Creator of the world from each other. (L. V. ο. 2.) 

It is owing to Tertullian’s mode of procedure that we are only thus 
superficially informed. Had he in his three books against the Antith- 
eses accompanied Marcion step by step, presented each Antithesis and 
its proof, we should have been better informed on many points. He 
has, however, in opposition to his adversary, laid down three positions 
of special importance, in as many books, and undertaken to maintain 
them. These are, that there is only one God; that the God of both 
Testaments is the same; and that thus there is but one Christ. While 
occupied with his own positions, he has taken notice of his adversary’s 
only in a passing manner and indistinctly, occasionally stating some of 
them in the 4th and 5th books. 

Paul was in Marcion’s eyes the sole and true Apostle, and his Epis- 
tles he consequently acknowledged; yet not all, and not without alter- 


comparationem Christi, contendens illam in nulloconvenire. Primo enim, inquis, 
Christus Esaiae Emmanuel vocari habebit; dehine virtutem sumere Damasci, 
et spolia Samariae adversum regem Assyriorum. Porro iste qui venit, neque sub 
ejusmodi nomine est editus, neque ulla re bellica functus est.—Serva modum 
aetatis, et quaere sensum praedicationis: immo redde Evangelio veritatis, quae 
osterior detraxisti, et tam intelligitur prophetia, quam renunciatur expuncta. 
ascent enim orientales illi magi, in infantid Christum recentem auro et thure 
munerantes, et acceperit infans virtutem Damasci, sine praelio et armis, etc. 


52 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


ations. From these, as well as from his Gospel, Epiphanius has made 
extracts, or a collection of such passages, forty in number, as appeared 
of use in refuting Marcion, and remained unmolested in his amended 
text of Paul. He has also taken notice of peculiar readings; but the 
passages omitted he did not mark as he has in his extracts from the 
Marcionite Gospel. It was 'Tertullian’s aim, in the 5th book of his con- 
futation of Marcion, to convict the Heretic of error, from his own codex 
of the Pauline Epistles, and he has pointed out by the way alterations 
and suppressions of verses and longer paragraphs. 

Epiphanius gives a list of the Epistles and their situation in the Mar- 
cionite ᾿““2ποστολικόν, (as Marcion’s collection of the Epistles was 
termed) in the following manner. ‘The Epistle to the Galatians ranked 
first; then followed the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians ; 
then that to the Romans; the two to the Thessalonians; that to the 
Laodiceans ; to the Colossians; to Philemon ; and that to the Philippi- 
ans formed the conclusion. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was, as 
Tertullian and Epiphanius testify, and as extracts still extant prove, 
the same which is otherwise called the Epistle to the Ephesians.! 

Tertullian, likewise, read them in the same order. He begins with 
the Epistle to the Galatians: “ Principalem adversus Judaismum epis- 
tolam nos quoque confitemur, quae Galatas docet” (L. V. c. 2), and 
occupies with it the 3d and 4th chapters of the 5th book. From the 
5th to the 11th chap., he treats of the Ist Epistle to the Corinthians ; 
and from the 11th to the 18th, of the second. The 13th and 14th 
chaps. are devoted to the Epist. to the Romans; the 15th and 16th to 
the two to the Thessalonians ; the 17th and 18th to that to the Ephesi- 
ans or Laodiceans; the 19th to that to the Colossians; the 20th to that 
to the Philippians; and, lastly, the 21st to the Epistle to Philemon. 

Thus Marcion’s collection discarded the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 
which would have demolished his whole system, had he not demol- 
ished it. He removed the Epistles to Titus and ‘Timothy, and yet re- 
tained that to Philemon; and hence Tertullian with reason wonders 
that he should have admitted the Epistle to one individual and yet have 
excluded Epistles to others concerning ecclesiastical affairs. As Ter- 
tullian found the Epistle to Philemon, in the copy which was before 
him, yet unmolested, probably on account of its brevity, while Epiphani- 
us, on the other hand, found it entirely disfigured, ὁλοσχερὼς αὐτὴν 
διαστροφῶς may αὐτῷ κεῖσϑαιυ, we may properly infer that Marcion’s 


1 Epiphanius Haeres. XLIL. p. 138. Basil. Aé δὲ ἐπιστολαὶ at mag αὐτῷ 
- λεγόμεναί εἰσι, πρώτη μὲν πρὸς Γαλάτας, δευτέρα δὲ πρὸς Κορινϑίους, τρίτῃ πρὸς 
Κορινϑίους δευτέρα, τετάρτη πρὸς “Ρωμαίους, πέμπτη πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς, ἕκτη 
πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς δευτέρα, ἑβδόμη πρὸς ᾿Πἰφεσίους, ὀγδόη πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς, ἔν-- 
νάτη πρὸς Φιλήμονα, δεκάτη πρὸς Φιλιππησίους, ἘΠ. Petav. § 9. p. 309, 10. Co- 
loniens. At the close of the extracts, before he passes to the Scholia, he once 
more gives a list of the Epistles acknowledged by Marcion, p. 141. Basil., and 
Petav. p. 321, where however the text is inaccurate. I propose to read: Ts δὲ 
πρὸς Τιμόϑεον πρώτης καὶ δευτέρας, καὶ πρὸς Τίτον, καὶ τῆς “EBooiovs οὐκ ἐμφε-- 
ρόμενων παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. The text of Epiphanius throughout requires correction. The 
edition of Petavius does not equal his reputation, and even the Ed. Colon. has 
become scarce. He speaks a second time concerning the title πρὸς daodlxeas, 
p. 274; and again p. 375. edit. Petav. Colon. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 53 


critical spirit descended to his followers, and that the latter completed 
what the master began. 

The suppressions and alterations in Marcion’s Apostolicon, when 
examined, as they have lately been,! lead to the same position which the 
ancients took in respect to them ; viz., that he mutilated the Epistles to 
save his system. He had his choice either to do the one or give up the 
other. He could make use of two pretences to justify his criticism up- 
on even anti-judaizing Paul; either that the Apostle of the Gentiles 
was not yet wholly free from Jewish fits, or that he suspected his wri- 
tings to have been contaminated by the hands of the Jewish apostles. 
Tertullian indicates the latter, and he probably observed assertions of 
that nature in the Antitheses. (L. V.c. 9o0n Coloss. 1: 16.) This pre- 
tence is in accordance with Marcion’s general charge against the Apos- 
tles, of having corrupted the doctrines of Christianity by changing the 
readings of the Scriptures and especially of Luke’s Gospel, which, he 
said, was disfigured by Jewish interpolations. 

Now as the Evangelical codex of Tatian, setting aside the Genealo- 
gies and some other things, attests the existence of our Gospels entire ; 
so Marcion’s Apostolical codex is a historic document which attests ten 
of the Epistles of Paul, establishes their age, and adjudges them to the 
author to whom they are usually ascribed. 

His Gospel attests our Luke, which he must have possessed, since he 
trimmed it to suit his own purposes and assigned the reasons for his 
pretended amendment in his Antitheses. His Antitheses in several 
places make the Gospel of Matthew the subject of criticism, and ex- 
press disapprobation of it on account of the prevailing Judaism to 
which its author had surrendered himself. Marcion rejected, moreo- 
ver, others of the Christian Scriptures, but his positions concerning 
them are not given with such precision, as to serve as ground for argu- 
ment. He rejected generally the other Scriptures received by the or- 
thodox, which, as Tertullian frequently reproaches him and as he him- 
self confesses in one of his letters, he once acknowledged, before he re- 
nounced the orthodox party.” 


ProtomMAEuS AND HERACLEON. 


Irenaeus connects them together and thus seems to have regarded 
them as contemporaries: yet he places Ptolomaeus first.? Tertullian, 
too, follows this order: he says, Valentinus marked out the road ; Ptol- 
omaeus paved it, and Heracleon made the side-walks.* But according 
to Origen,° the latter was Οὐαλεντίνου γνώριμος : he enjoyed the 


1 Aug. Hahn, “ Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner urspriinglichen Gestalt.” 
2d Abschn. p. 50-66. 

2 De carne Christi. c. 2. “His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta 
Christi, Murcion, delere ausus es, ne caro ejus probaretur—excidisti, rescindendo 
quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola, et tul non ne- 
gant, et nostri probant.”’ 

3 Iren. L. II. Adv. Haeres. ο. 2. 
4 Tertull. Advers. Valentinianos, c. 4. 


5 Orig. Tom. IJ. in Joann. p. 60. Huet. Colon. 


54 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


friendship or instruction of Valentinus ; much more then did Ptolomae- 
us. Ofa different sect, Cerdo, Marcion’s teacher, was their contempo- 
rary. Epiphanius, indeed, places him after Heracleon,! referring to 
the time when he acquired celebrity ; but the interval between them 
cannot possibly have been of much consequence, as Cerdo was distin- 
guished under ,Hysinus, under whom Valentinus rose to be the head of 
a distinct sect.” 

There is still extant a letter from Ptolomaeus to his pupil, Flora,? in 
which he imparts instruction respecting the contrariety between the 
Law and the Gospel, which had then become through Cerdo a subject 
of discussion, and warns her against the pernicious principles which 
some deduced from these Antitheses; viz., that we must distinguish 
between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New, and that 
the former was the God of the Jews, Creator of the world, and only an 
imperfect God. 

For the Apostle expressly declares our Saviour to be the Creator of 
the world when he, δ ἀπόστολος, says, πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι καὶ 
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι οὐδέν. ‘This Apostle is clearly John. (1:3. ) 
But those who interpret the words of our Saviour, τὰ ὑπὸ TOU σωτῆρος 
εἰρημένα---οἰκία ἢ πόλις μερυϑεῖσα ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὴν, ὅτι μὴ δύναται στη- 
vat, of the Jewish lawgiver and of the imperfection of the constitution 
which he formed, misunderstand our Lord. The first part of this is 
Matt. 12: 25, with the variation ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὴν, as in Codex D; the οὐ δύ- 
ναταῦ σταϑῆναι, or, as B, L, K and some other MSS. read, οὐ δύναται 
στῆναι, is in Mark 3:25. Yet the coincidence as respects "the last few 
words may be only accidental, and the whole may be a quotation from 
memory. 

Not all the laws of the Old Testament are from God himself; some 

are only from Moses, as the Saviour, δεαλεγομενὸς που ὁ σωτήρ, said to 
those who inquired of him concerning a bill of divorce : Ὅτι Movons 
πρὸς, τὴν σχληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψε τὸ ἀπολύειν τὴν γυναῖκα 
αὐτοῦ" an ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως. (ϑεὸς γάρ φησι, συνέζευξε 
ταύτην τὴν συζυγίαν ἡ καὶ ὁ συνέζευξεν ὁ κύριος, ἄνϑρωπος μὴ χω- 
ουζέτω. ‘The first part of this, as far as the parenthesis, in which he in- 
serts an observation of his own couched in his well-known phrase- 
ology, is, with the exception of slight variations, to be found in Matt. 
19: 8, cand i in no other Evangelist : “Ou Meivore πρὸς THY σχληροκαρ- 
δίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν ἀπολύσαι TAS γυναίκας ὑμῶν" ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 
οὐ γέγονεν οὕτω. Comp. Mark 10: 5, 6. The conclusion, likewise, is 
in Matthew : Ὃ οὖν ὃ ϑεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνϑρωπος μη ) χωριζέτω. (19: 6. ) 
The words, too, are in our Evangelist, in the very connection in which 
Ptolomaeus has presented them; and are, in addition to the formula, 
the Lord says, more clearly designated as a quotation, by the expres- 
sion, διαλεγόμενός ITO Y—he says somewhere, in a certain place. So 
too Clemens Romanus, with this phraseology, ‘has referred toa passage 
in Isaiah: λέγει γάρ mov" and with the same words, to another in the 
Proverbs of Solomon. (Clem. Ep. I. ad Cor. c. 15 and 21, ) 
Human traditions too, he further informs his pupil, had been mixed 


q Epiphan. Haeres. XLI. Képdwy τις τουτοῦς καὶ τὸν ‘Hooxidave διαδέχεται. 
2 Tren. L. III. Adv. Haeres. ο. 4. 3 In Epiphanius. Haeres. XX XIII. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 55 


with the Law, as our Saviour declares, δηλοῖ καὶ τοῦτο ὦ σωτήρ. And 
now he quotes again, freely and from memory, yet so that we clearly 
recognize Matthew. The beginning: Zima tov πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν 
μητέρα σου, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται, is rather from Moses than oe 
But ye say, says our Lord to the teachers of the law : δῶρον τῷ ϑεῷ, 
ἐὰν ὠφεληϑῆς ἐξ ἐμοῦ which, except the addition τῷ ϑεῷ, we find in 
Matthew, together with the following words: xai ἠκυρώσατε τὸν v0- 
μὸν (so read Codd. C. 13 and 124. δ τοῦ ϑεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων" as likewise the words of Isaiah, which Mattthew has em- 
ployed in a very peculiar manner, 6 λαὸς οὗτος as far as ἐντάλματα 
ἀνϑρώπων, Matt. 15: 5, 6, 8. 

The Law, he proceeds, may be considered generally under three 
points of view. One portion of it our Lord exalted to perfection ; this 
is that νόμος, ὃν οὐκ ἦλϑε καταλύσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι, Matt. 5: 17; 
that part which the Saviour came to fulfil, not to destroy. Another por- 
tion has been repealed; and the third was only a typical representation 
of that which was to come, and ceased of itself, when this took place: 
e. g. the law, a tooth for a ‘tooth and an eye for an eye, is abrogated by 
our Saviour, ‘when he says : Lye yao λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ ἀντιστῆναι ὅλως 
τῷ πονερῷ" GAA ἐὰν τίς σε ὁαπίση, στρέψον αὐτῷ χαὶ τὴν ἄλλην σια- 
γόνα. This too, with only a trifling difference in the order of the 
words, is found in Matt. 5: 39. Codex D, which in general contains a 
very ancient text, likewise omits δεξιάν. 

Of that part which was only typical and consisted in ceremonial ob- 
servances, Paul speaks (δηλοῖ καὶ Παῦλος 0 ᾿Ἵπόστολος) when he 
says : To πάσχα ἡμῶν ἔτυϑε Xouoros, καὶ ἵνα ἢτέ, φησιν, ἄζυμοι, 
μὴ μετέχοντες ζύμης ... ἀλλ᾽ ἦτε νέον φύραμα. The words are, ac- 
cording to Ptolemy’s custom, transposed and given in a very free man- 
ner; yet evidently come from Paul, 1. Cor. 5:7. The same Paul, ex- 
plaining the type of the passover and the unleavened bread, Ὁ “Ἅπόο- 
τολος Παῦλος... .. τὸν εἰχόνα .... διὰ τοῦ πάσχα καὶ τῶν αζύμων 
δείξας, speaks of that part of the law which wasidone away; ἑἐπὼν τὸν 
νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι κατηργῆσϑαι" and also of that which 
only needed perfecting and completion : ὁ μὲν νόμος, εἰπὼν, ἅγιος, καὶ 
ἢ ἐντολὴ ἁγία, καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαϑή. The first passage is here ex- 
pressed freely and with the infinitive form of the verb; but otherwise it 
is literally, Eph. 2: 15. The other is literally, Rom. 7: 12. 

Of the works of Heracleon considerable fragments are extant. In 
Clement of Alexandria there is an- exegetical fragment on_ Luke 12: 8, 
9. πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμόν, as far as ἀγγέλων τοῦ ϑεοῦ, from 
which, τοῦτον τὸν τύπον ἐξηγούμενος, he endeavors to support the 
position, that it is sufficient to acknowledge Jesus by our actions and to 
attest his doctrines by our life, without adding an oral confession, 
e. g.as in times of persecution. Hence our Lord says ἐν ἐμοί, when 
he speaks of confession, and μέ when he speaks of denial. For the ἐν 
ἐμοὶ refers to those who live in him through conviction and instruction, 
and in whom, consequently, he also lives. Under such circumstances 
denial is not conceivable ; for one must then deny himself, which can- 
not be: διόπερ ἀρνήσασϑαι é ἑαυτὸν οὐδέποτε δύναται. To these last 


1 Lib. IV. Strom. c. 9. Ed. Ven. 595. Sylb. 502. 


56 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


words he appears to attach considerable importance, as if they were rel- 
evant to the argument and of similar authority with the preceding. 
Paul expresses himself in the same manner respecting Jesus himself: 

ἀρνήσασϑαι ἑαυτὸν ov δύναται. (2 Tim. 2: 13.) 

In an appendix to the works of Clement of Alexandria, Heracleon 
comments with much partionlanty on an apostolical passage : οὕτως 
ἀκούσαντες τὸ ἀποστολικὸν, which is found in Matt. 8: 11, 12. and 
also in Luke 3: 17, in the same words. There is no evidenced in favor 
of either of the two in particular. 

Numerous and important fragments of his commentaries on John’s 
Gospel, are presented by Origen i in his exposition of the same, in order 
to correct the heretic. (T’om. il in Johann. III, VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. 
XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVII. XIX. ΧΧΙ. XXIV. 
XXVI 

Heracleon has sometimes, in his exposition, referred to other biblical 
passages. But he has treated them cursorily and rather alluded to 
them, than extracted them at length ; often only their sense is introdu- 
ced into the current of his discourse. 

The story (John 4: 46.) of the royal officer or soldier, he interprets in 
his peculiar manner (Origen. Tom. VIII. in Joann ), understanding by 
βασιλικὸς the Demiurgus. In this exposition he incidentally remarks, 
that ἐν τῷ, in the passage, οἱ viol τῆς βασιλείας ἐξελεύσονται εἰς τὸ 
ἐξώτερον, the perdition which awaits the followers of the Demiurgus is 
spoken of.3 The passage is Matt. 8: 12, with the variation ἐξελεύσον-- 
vat, however, which occurs in Bianchini. (Cod. Veron. et Vercell.) 

in another place (Tom. XVI. in Joann.) he refers, under the formu- 
la κατὰ τὸ, to the words, 0 ϑερισμὸς πολὺς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι. And 
(Tom. XIV.) among other biblical quotations, he speaks of the Son’s 
coming, ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλὸς. The two passages are word 
for word in Matt. 9: 37. and 18: 11; and likewise in Luke 10: 2, and 
19: 10. There is no means of decision in favor of either. 

In the course of his remarks ( 7’. XJIJ.) he has evidently introduced 
the words of 1 Cor. 13: 12; without quoting them literally or treating 
them as a quotation. With these he connects the words, ἀρόητα ῥή- 
ματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώποις λαλῆσαι, which are peculiar to the 2d 
Epist. to the Corinthians, 12: 4. Thus too he refers, for the expres- 
sion λογικὴ λατρεία, ἴο the Apostle (Tom. XIV. in Joann.), καϑ' ὃ καὶ 
6 ᾿ΑἸπόστολος διδάσκει. This occurs in Paul to the Romans 12: 1.° 

We therefore derive the following evidence from what remains of 
the writings of Ptolemy and Heracleon. From the former, we have 


1 Ex scriptis Prophetarum Eclogae. c. 25. 


2 They have already been extracted from Origen’s works by Grabe, Spicileg. 
Patr. Vol. II. p. 85—117. According to De la “Rue’s arrangement, Opp . Orig 
Vol. IV. Comm. in Jo. Tom. I. p. 66. 73. T. VI. p- 102. 117. 120—22. 125. 130. 138 
—40. 157. T. X. p. 170. 179. 194. 196. 200—2. T. XIII. 220. 221. 224—27. 
229. 230. 234. 235. 237—39. 241. 242. 248. 251—52. 255—56. 260—63. 265—67. 
mi — 276. 77: T. XIX. p. 296. 802. T. XX. p. 316. 332. 337—40. 345. 

0 


3 According to De la Rue’s edition. Tom.XIII. p. 76. 
4 Τ᾿ XIII. p. 220. 5 T. XIII. p. 234. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 57 


five passages extracted out of Matthew’s Gospel, which retain the ex- 
pression, with various degrees of exactness, but are all easily recog- 
nized ; one from John’s Gospel, not wholly literally, but with the refer- 
ence 0 ᾿“πόστολος ; passages under Paul’s name, from the Epistle to 
the Romans, the Ist to the Corinthians and that to the Ephesians. 
From Heracleon, fragments of a commentary on the whole of John; an 
exposition of a passage in Luke; a passage from Matthew under a 
form of citation. We have, moreover, a reference to the Epistle to the 
Romans, under the expression ὁ “ποστολος; and, without any inti- 
mation that they are citations, one passage, freely but evidently from 
the Ist Epistle to the Corinthians, one word for word from the 2d 
Epistle to the Corinthians, and one from the 2d to Timothy. ; 


VALENTINUS AND HIS SCHOOL. 


Ptolomy and Heracleon were indeed disciples of Valentinus; but 
they left his sect and deviated in many points from his system. But 
notwithstanding this secession, he remained the head of a large and 
very extensive sect which took its name from him. 

We still possess some remains of his works; viz. fragments of his 
letters, of his homilies, and of a treatise on the origin of evil.! But in 
these fragments, which were extracted only to show some of his pecu- 
liar ideas, no arguments from the sacred books occur, so that for our 
purpose they might as well not be in existence. 

Irenaeus, however, has thought the biblical arguments by which he 
supported his system, worthy of his attention, and has replied to them, 
by which means they have come to our knowledge. 

He had, as he says, frequent intercourse with Valentinians them- 
selves; and what is of more importance, he had writings of the disci- 
ples of Valentinus before him, from which he drew.” We, indeed, hear 
the teacher from the mouth of his disciples; we want not now, howev- 
er, a perfect description of his system, but only such things as ordinary 
abilities are sufficient to state. 

It is first of all worthy of notice, that the fathers never charged him 
with mutilating the biblical writings, or with rejecting and retaining of 
them just what he chose. Tertullian even concedes that he received 
the biblical Codex entire; but he reproaches him with having abused it 
more by his misinterpretations than Marcion had with his knife.? 
Irenaeus states that Valentinus gave the preference to John’s Gospel ; 
and only complains of him and his followers, that, besides the four ac- 
knowledged Gospels, they had one more than other Christians, which 
they even called Evangelium vcritatis.4 He says besides, that they 
drew their arguments not only from the evangelical and apostolical wri- 


1 In Clement of Alexandria, L. III. Strom. L. 11. Strom. Also L. IV. 
Strom. Origen. Dialog. contra Marcion. Sect. IV. Grabe Spicileg. Pat. et 
Haer. Vol. 11. p. 50—58. 


2 L. I. Adv. Haer. Praef.n, 2. Ἐντυχόν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ de- 
yovor, Οὐαλεντίνου μαϑητῶν. Ἶ 

3 Tertull. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 38. 

4 Tren. Lib. III. ο. ΧΙ. π. 7. Adv. Haeret. 


8 


58 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


tings, helping themselves by explanations and ingenious interpretations, 
but also from the Law and the Prophets.! 

We might draw from this an advantageous conclusion in respect to 
the sacred books generally, which we see were received as such in the 
days of Irenaeus and Tertullian; but we will first examine how this 
general and unsuspicious testimony in favor of the heretics is confirmed 
in detail, and then every one is at liberty to estimate the strength of 
this cumulative evidence. 

The father does not quote the parables and narratives of the histori- 
cal books of the New Testament on which they founded their argu- 
ments, at full length, as perhaps they were presented in their own wri- 
tings. Hence it will be necessary that we should judge from their rea- 
soning and deductions whether their arguments in any cases do really 
imply such particularities in circumstance or language, as force us to 
recognise our historical documents and as, so to speak, individualize 
them. 

They refer among other things to a parable of our Saviour, on which 
they attempt to ground the number of their thirty Aeons. It is not ci- 
ted word for word, probably on account of its extent. The parable is 
that of the laborers who were sent at different hours into the vineyard. 
They were sent, say they, about the first, the third, the sixth, the ninth, 
and the eleventh hours. Now these hours, one, three, six, nine and 
eleven, make up the number thirty ; hence thirty hours or Aeons.* 

We find a parable respecting laborers in a vineyard in Matt. 20: 1, 
seq. Now was it this to which they alluded? In such ἃ representa- 
tion it must have been wholly accidental what hours, and how many, 
were named. It would even have been sufficient, if it had been said 
generally, at different hours, or simply in the morning, at noon, and at 
evening. But in Matthew the laborers are sent m@wi—or wig ὥρᾳ 
(v. 12),—about the first, the third, the sixth, the ninth and eleventh 
hours ; exactly as it is represented above. Were there any difference 
as to one of the hours, their argument would not be just. Thus Mat- 
thew’s narrative is presupposed in all its circumstances; circumstances 
which were wholly accidental, and depended upon the fancy of the wri- 
ter. And Irenaeus then concludes: “So did they abuse the Holy 
Scriptures,” etc. 

The story of the woman who had suffered twelve years from an issue _ 
of blood does not appear in Matthew with the same circumstances as 
are given bythe Valentinians. But isit not thus represented in Mark or 
Luke? (Mark 5: 25, seq. Luke 8: 43.) 

Her condition is stated in the words of Mark, παϑοῦσα dwdsxa ἕτη, 
and they lay much stress in their argument upon the expression πα- 
ϑοῦσα, as well as upon the δωδεχα ἔτη. For they attempt to incul- 
cate from it, that one of their spiritual existences, the twelfth Aeon, en- 
dured severe sufferings, and was delivered from them by another power, 
τὴν ἴασιν τοῦ πεπονϑοότος Ulevos, and that 7 παϑοῦσα δωδεκα ἕτη 


1 Ibid. Lib. 1, 6. 11]. n.6. Kat οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἄποσ-- 
τολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς ἀποδέιξεις ποιεῖσϑαι, παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ 
ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξεγήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν x. T. 1. 

2 Kren. L. 1. ο. I. ἡ. 8. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 59 


ἐχείνη ἡ δύναμες is here meant. When the woman touched Jesus, he 
asked, τίς μὲ ἥψατο; as we find in Mark 5: 30. What they say farther, 
that by this question he intended to instruct his disciples, δεδασκοντα 
τοὺς μαϑητάς, agrees with Mark only, where the disciples come direct- 
ly into notice : χαὲ ἔλεγον οἱ μαϑηταί x. τ. A. Tren. L. 1. C. IL n. 3. 

The story of a certain Anna, mentioned in the Gospel, καὶ δια τῆς 
"Ἄννης τῆς ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ κερυσσόμενος προφήτιδος, who was a 
prophetess, and had lived seven years with her husband, but had passed 
the remaining period, till our Saviour’s coming, in a state of widow- 
hood, occurs with all these briefly noticed circumstances in Luke’s 
Gospel, 2: 36. The story of a certain Simeon, who, giving thanks, 
took the Saviour in his arms, and said: νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλον σου, 
δέσποτα, κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ, (which represents the Demiur- 
gus, who perceived his near departure at the coming of the Saviour and 
gave thanks,) ocecurs, with these circumstances and these words of 
Simeon, in the same Evangelist, 2: 39. (Iren. L. I. C. VIII. n. 4.) 

They refer to John, the disciple of our Lord, by name, as having 
spoken expressly of the first eight Aeons. They adduce as proof the 
first chapter of John’s Gospel, which they explain after their own man- 
ner. Irenaeus quotes their own language as follows:! John, the disci- 
ple of our Lord, wishing to describe the creation of the universe, or the 
way in which the Father evolved every thing from himself, supposes 
first an ἀρχήν, a principle which he also calls μονογενής and ϑεός, in 
which the Father produced all things originally and gave forth the Lo- 
gos from himself, etc., whence he says: ἐν ἀρχῇ xv ὁ λύγος x. τ. 1. 

According to the foregoing observations, what the father of the 
Church has asserted in respect to the biblical Codex of the Valentin- 
ians must be correct, viz. that they received it entire, without mutila- 
ting it at all and without exception of any particular parts, and that they 
caused it to speak for them only by misinterpretation. 

We might add very considerably to the number of arguments in fa- 
vor of some of the Gospels, particularly of Luke ; but we will only sub- 
join further a few which relate to Matthew. The Iota with which the 
name Jesus begins signifies ten Aeons ; hence-our Saviour spoke with 
so much emphasis of the Iota. This they show from his words: Kat 
διὰ τοῦτο εἰρεκέναι τὸν σωτῆρα--- (ὦτα ἕν, ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλ- 
On ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. The words are Matthew 5:18 as far as 
the expression ἀπὸ tov νόμου, which they could not cite, as by it the 
passage would have been restricted to the Old Testament. (Iren. L. I. 
C. ΠῚ. n. 2.) 

The Saviour spoke of a separating and rending power of the Horus 
in the words “‘ I am not come to send peace but a sword.” ‘The figure 
and the phraseology are found in Matthew 10: 34. jv δὲ διοριστικ-- 
ἣν αὐτοῦ (ἐνέργειαν) ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν " οὐχ ἦἤλϑον βαλεῖν ἐιρήνην, ἀλλὰ 
μάχαιραν. (Iren. L. I. C. III. n. 5.) 

Theodotus, as we have seen, sometimes expatiates on the tenets of 


LL. Το C. VE. n. 5. “Bre τε ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν μαϑητὴν τοῦ Κυρίου, διδάσκουσε 
τὴν πρώτην ὀγδοὰδα μεμηνυκέναι αὐταῖς λέξεσιν λέγοντες οὕτως «“ Τωάννης 6 μα-- 
ϑητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου βουλόμενος εἰπεῖν τὴν τῶν ὅλων γένεσιν, καϑ' ἣν τὰ πάντα προ-- 
έβαλεν ὁ πατὴρ, ἀρχήν τινα ὑποτίϑεταε x. τ. A.” 


60 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


Valentinus and his disciples. They maintained, he says, that the Sa- 
viour first awoke the ψυχή from slumber, and kindled a flame within it. 
To this these words of our Saviour point : διὰ τοῦτο ξιρηκεν---λαμψά- 
TM τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσϑεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. They are Matt. 5: 16. ! 
Farther, , they interpreted the passage : Foi τινὲς τῶν ὧδε é ἐστηχότων, 
οἱ οὐ μὴ γεύσονται ϑανάτου, ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔν 
δόξῃ, not of the Apostles standing around, but of the things of the uni- 
verse which encompassed our Saviour. 2 All these words occur in Mat- 
thew, except ἐν δόξῃ, which variation, however, is found likewise in 
some MSS. and ancient versions. (Matt. 16: 28. y But this quotation, 

as far as the last words, occurs too in Mark 9: 1, and Luke 9: 27. It 
would therefore be very unsafe to determine in ‘favor of Matthew in 
particular. This citation is selected here rather for another purpose, 
viz. to induce us to note that the evidences for particular Gospels are 
not so numerous as we might desire, from the fact that the passages ci- 
ted are frequently alike in several Evangelists. This remark applies 
especially to Matthew and Luke. 


2 


The Valentinians, like the Marcionites, were unable as m their prin- 
ciples to allow Christ a human body : such a body, they say, must have 
sprung not from the spirit or from God, but from the will of man, ( Tertull. 


De Carne Christi, c. 15) which would be contrary to the Gospel. “ Sic 
enim Scriptum esse contendunt: non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis volun- 
tate, nec ex viri, sed ex Deo natus est.” (Zbid c. 19.) Tertullian 
charges them with fraud, as follows: “John 1: 13 should be read... 
sed ex Deo natisunt. Hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar, quum 
adulteratores ejus obduxero.” It is not however read so invariably. 

Some western MSS. Εν the passage as above (and so Irenaeus, L. III. 
Adv. Haer. c. XVI. π. 2. and ὁ. XIX. ἢ. 2.), the purple colored MS. 

of Verona has it so, and “Aagustine, at least once. Thus this reading 
was indeed approved by the Valentinians; but evidently was not intro- 
duced by them. Here the excellent Griesbach is chargeable with an 
oversight: it was not our reading, οἱ---ἐγεννήϑησαν, but the opposite, 

of which Tertullian accused the Valentinians. 

They applied to the same purpose the words of Matthew 1:20. It 
is written, they said, “ per virginem, non ez virgine, quia et angelus in. 
somnis ad Joseph : Nam quod | in ea natum ,»—de spiritu sancto est ; non 
dixit ex ea.” (De Carne Chr. c. 20) 

Paul, too, is said to have spoken ὁ of those exalted spirits which they 
call Acons, τὸν “Παῦλον τοὺς δὲ αἰῶνας ὀνομάξειν, when he said: εἰς 
πᾶσας TAS γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων. These words are in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, 3: 21.3 

These Aeons took what each of them possessed of peculiar excel- 
lence and united the whole in a single being ; : thence was formed Jesus 
or the Saviour. Hence Paul calls him ail in all: ὑπὸ δὲ Παύλου φα- 
νερώς διὰ τοῦτο εἰρῆσϑαι A¢yovor—they then adduce in confirmation, 
Rom. 11: 36 and particularly Coloss. 2: 9. “Ev αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ 
πλήρωμα τῆς ϑεόύτητος, and a passage from the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians (1: 10), which however is given somewhat freely.4. To this Sa- 


1 Epitome ex scriptis Theodoti. § 2. 2 Lib. cit. § 4. 
3 Tren. ΤΠ}. c. TL. a, f 4 L.1.c. TIL. n. 4. 


"9 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 61 


viour the Father then granted supremacy over all the Aeons, ὅπως ἐν 
αὐτῷ TH πάντα κείσϑη, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, ϑρόνου, θϑηότητες, 
κυριότητες This passage is interwoven with the context and employ- 
ed without any formula of citation ; it is found in Coloss. 1: 16. It is 
noticeable on account of the peculiar reading of the Valentinians : 
ϑροόνοι, ϑεύτητες. Theodotus also cites it as found in the writings of 
the Valentinians, and with him it has still another addition, βασιλείαι, 
ϑεύότητες, λειτούργιαι. (§ 43.) 

But they appeal, with express mention of Paul’s name, to other Epis- 
tles of his, in order to prove some of their fables i in respect to the virtue 
of the cross : Παῦλον δὲ τὸν ᾿πόστολον, καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπιμιμνήσκεσϑαιν 
τυύτου τοῦ σταυροῦ λέγουσιν, οὕτως, ὁ λόγος γὰρ͵ τοὺ σταυροῦ τοῖς 
μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστὶ, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμες ϑεοῦ" 
καὶ πάλιν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο ἐν “μηδενὶ καυχᾶσϑαι, él μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυ- 
0@ τοὺ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, κᾷγω τῷ κόσμῳ. 
(Iren. L. I. c. Ill. n.5.) The first passage is 1 Cor. 1: 18; the other 
Galat. 6: 14, with two observable variations. 


Paul, they say, has alluded in the Epistle to the Corinthians to the 
wanderi Achamoth, a female Aeon, who was lost from the Plero- 
ma: τὸν λον λέγουσιν εἰρηκέ Val ἕν τῇ πρὸς Koowdiove, ἔσχατον 


dé πάντων, wonegel τῷ ἐχτρώματι ὥφϑη καμοί. The passage is Ist 
Cor. 15: 8; and immediately after, they quote also 1 Cor. 11: 10. (Iren. 
L. 1. 6. VIII. n. 

They assert that Paul has spoken of the male and female Aeons and 
their intercourse : καὶ τὰς συζυγίας, tag ἐντὸς τοῦ πληρωμᾶτος τὸν 
Tlaviov ἐϊρηκέναι φάσκουσι. They then cite, word for word, Eph. 5: 
32. (Iren. L. I. c. VIII. n. 4.) 

They divided mankind into three classes ; into ὑλικοιὶὶς, Wuzenore, 
πνευματικούς. For the validity of this division they appeal to Paul, 
among others : Παῦλον διαῤῥήδην εἰρηκέναι yoixous, ψυχικοὺς, πνεὺ- 
ματιχούς. ‘The apt of the Apostle which they cite occurs in 
1 Cor. 15: 48, and 1. Cor. 2: 14, 15. They then adduce also the pas- 
sage Rom. 11: 16, with express reference to Paul, Παῦλον εἰρηκέναι. 
(Iren. L. 1. c. VILL. n. 3.) 

In all, they have quoted from the following Epistles : that to the Ro- 
mans, the first to the Corinthians, those to the Galatians, to the Ephe- 
sians and to the Colossians. 

Among the curiosities of the British museum there is (Cod. Askew.) 
a work of Valentinus, Πιστὴ «Σοφία, translated into the dialect of Up- 
per Egypt. 

From the characters, this MS. would seem to be one of the oldest 
MSS. in the Coptic language. Woide used it for his edition of the 
Sahidic New Testament ; but only in passages where the Πιστὴ Sog- 
ta has remarkable variations, or supplies chasms. Yet a large number 
of passages from the Gospels and from several Hpistles is noticed; e. g. 
Matt. 7: 7, 8. 10: 36,41. 11: 14,28. 18:9, 24:4, 22, 48. 28: 18, 
Luke 14: 34, 35. 22: 28, 29, 30. John 4: 10, 14. 17: 16. 19: 34. 
Rom. 13: 7, 8. 1Cor.2:9. 12: 12. and Heb. 2: 11, the words of which 
last, however, are i into our Lord’s rele Were t the scope a. a 


Pid, «Aare 


62 AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE 


work more extensive, it would afford us many advantages besides those 
we now speak of. 


Ture Esionires 


always disliked the apostle Paul, whose anti-Jewish sentiments, it is 
easily imagined, were disagreeable tothem. They had, therefore, their 
own Acts of the Apostles, in which James was the principal personage, 
and which favored, as they wished, their Jewish prejudices. This wri- . 
ting contained attacks upon Paul, to whom they even denied a Jewish 
origin, appealing to his own confession. They found their pretence, 
says the writer who makes us acquainted with the contents of this book, 
upon the following passage: “1 am a native of Tarsus, a citizen of no 
mean city.”' These words are in our Acts of the Apostles, 21: 39. 


BasinipEs AND Isiporus, 


father and son; both men of learning and leaders of a Gnostic sect. 
Some large fragments of the writings of the son have been preserved 
by Clement of Alexandria. But they rather-present his opinions, than 
the grounds on which he vindicated them.° 

In one of these fragments he treatsof marriage and celibacy. When 
the Apostles (it begins) asked our Lord, whether it were not better to 
refrain from marriage, he said, οὐ navreg χωροῦσι tov λόγον τοῦτον. 
Jesus really used these words, in the connection in which they here 
stand (Matt. 19: 11), after his disciples had made the objection: If it 
be so, it is not good to marry. Our Lord says further, (it proceeds,) 
that there are eunuchs by birth, and eunuchs by compulsion; but those 
who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, ete. 
Of these three sorts of eunuchs our Lord does speak, in the passage in 
Matthew which has been mentioned, and, although the passage is handled 
very freely, yet the last part certainly comes very near to Matthew: οἱ dé 
ἕνεκα τῆς αἰωνίου βασιλείας εὐνουχίσαντες ἑαυτούς.3 (Matt. 19: 12, of- 
τίνες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.) Thus the 
connection, the purport, and in part the language point us to Matthew. 

He uses equal freedom in another citation, in which he appeals to the 
Apostle: λέγειν τὸν ‘Andorolov—duewov γαμῆσαν ἢ πυροῦσϑαι. 
Yet Paul, 1 Cor. 7: 9, κρεῖσσον γάρ ἔστι γαμῆσαν ἢ πυρούσϑαι, is ea- 
sily recognized.* 

Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, of whose writings, likewise, some 


1 Epiphanius Haeres. XXX. n. 16. Πράξεις δὲ ἄλλας καλοῦσιν ᾿“Τ΄ποστόλων 
εἶναι + + +» ἀναβαϑμοὺς γάρ τινας καὶ ὑφηγήσεις δῆϑεν ἐν τοῖς ἀναβαϑμοῖς "Ιακώ-- 
βου ὑποτίϑενται, ὡς ἐξηγουμένου κατά τε τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τῶν ϑυσιῶν..... «. ὡς καὶ 
τοῦ Πάυλου ἐνταῦϑα κατηγοροῦντες... Ταρσέα γὰρ αὐτὸν, we αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ καὶ 
οὐκ ἀρνεῖται, λέγοντες . ἐξ “Ελλήνων δὲ αὐτὸν ὑποτίϑενται, λάβοντες τὴν πρόφασιν 
ἐκ τοῦ τόπου διὰ τὸ φιλαληϑὲς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ῥηϑὲν, ὅτε Ταρσεύς εἶμι, οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλ-- 
ews πολίτης κ- τ. ἢ. ὲ 

2 Lib. J. Strom. L. IL. L. UL. & L. VI. 


3 Lib. III. Strom. c.1. Epiphanius Adv. Haeres. Lib. IJ. Haeres. XXXII. 
Ρ. 211. Edit. Petav. Colon. p. 95. Edit. Basil. 


4 Lib. III. Strom. loc. cit. 


SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST. 63 


small fragments have reached us,' opposes the tenets of Isidore respect- 
ing the Law, and charges him with misunderstanding the Apostle’s 
words : μὴ συνεὶς τὸ τοῦ Ano0orodov ῥητον, λέγοντος---διὰ νόμου τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν ἔγνων. They are in Rom. 7: 7. 

Of Basilides himself, the father, little remains, although Agrippa 
Castor knew of twenty-four books written by him upon the Gospel.” 
This loss is by no means unimportant, since this man appeared as a 
teacher as early as Hadrian, and probably even under Trajan, and 
closed his life under Antoninus Pius, at a period when others first be- 
gan to attract notice.® 

In the largest fragment of him, the following passage has struck my 
eye: adda ἐξ ἄλλων ὄντως ἐγκαλούμενοι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατάδικοι ἐπὶ κα- 
κοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις πάϑωσε" μηδὲ λοιδορούμενοι ὡς ὁ μοιχὸς, ἢ ὁ 
φονεὺς, ἀλλ Ore Χριστιανοὶ πεφυκότες, ὅπερ αὐτοὺς παρηγὐρησὲν 
μηδὲ πάσχειν δοκεῖν." This passage is found, in substance, in the Ist 
Epistle of Peter 4: 14, 15, 16; and is certainly in a measure peculiar. 
There are, besides, similarities in the language: ἵνα un οἷς κατάδικοι 
ἐπὶ κακοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις πάϑωσι, μηδὲ... ὡς οἱ φονεύς. Peter 
expresses himself: μὴ yao τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς... ἢ καπο- 
movos—and, ἀλλ᾽ ore Χριστιανοὶ πεφυχότες A. Peter says: εἰ δὲ ὡς 
-Χριστέανὸς μὴ αἰσχυνέσϑω. 

Origen, also, has presented us in his Commentaries on the Epistle to 
the Romans with a fragment of the writings of Basilides, in which he 
interprets the words of Paul, Rom. 7: 9, 10, as supporting one of his 
favorite tenets, the transmigration of souls ; not very happily it is clear, 
but yet not without talent and ingenuity.° 

So many testimonies do we find in the 2d century alone, and these in 
the poor remains of a literature in regard to which the rage for destruc- 
tion has been designedly active and eminently successful—so many 
that not one of those books which were not disputed in the orthodox 
church wants confirmation. We must except only the Epistle to Ti- 
tus; this remains unauthenticated, while the Gospel of John, of Mat- 
thew, the Ist Epistle to the Corinthians and that to the Romans, and 
still other books, are by testimony placed far beyond suspicion. Let 
‘us now imagine how overwhelming would have been the external evi- 


dence, if the disposition to destroy had not been so extensively grati- 
fied. 


If, however, the evidences for any parts are but feeble, only connect. 


them with those which have been collected from the fathers of the 


church; and the two opposing parties, who were never agreed in | 


1 Lib. III. Strom. 6. 2. Grabe Spicileg. Patr. T. 11. p. 61, 62. 

2 Euseb. Histor. Eccles. L. IV. c. ΧΩ 3. 

3 Grabe Spicileg. T. II. p. 36, 37. 

4 Clem. Alex. L. IV. Strom. ο. 12. Sylburg. p. 506. 

5 Origen. L. V. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. ο. 5. Tom. II. Opp. Lat. Edit 
Basil. p. 530. “Ego inquit (Paulus) mortuussum: caepitenim jam mihi reputari 
peccatum. Sed haec Basilides non advertens de lege naturali debere intelligi, 
ad ineptias et impias fabulas sermonem apostolicum traxit in Pythagoricum dog- 
ma... dixit enim, inquit, apostolus, quia ego vivebam sine lege aliquando, hoc 
est antequam in istud corpus venirem, in eam corporis speciem vixi, quae sub 
lege non esset, pecudis scilicet vel avis,” etc. Edit. De la Rue, Vol. IV. p. 549. 


“ 


ἃ 
a 


64 CREDIBILITY OF THE 


their lifetime, the fathers and the heretics, will unite in erecting a 
᾿ Monument to truth. 

It is moreover worthy of special attention, that these accidentally 
rescued testimonies do not merely attest the existence of the New Tes- 
tament in the 2d century, but also testify to an earlier origin of 
this book. There are few of them whose force is confined to their 
own period; which do not mount higher, and give security likewise 
that these are the writings of the Apostles—that Peter, John, Paul were 
their authors. 


CHAPTER II. 
REMARKS IN RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE WRITINGS. 


§ 9. 


Ir is ordinarily the case that when it is supposed the genuineness of 
these books is established, the investigation of their credibility is forth- 
with undertaken. As to the didactic writings, such an investigation 
can have place only so far as they refer to events. Since, however, 
nearly all the occurrences to which they refer are contained in the his- 
torical books, the whole inquiry may be restricted to the exclusively 
historical books of the New Testament. Are then the facts which 
these communicate true ? 

A question involving so much as this does, is proposed too early, I 
should think, before we are at all informed as to the historical charac- 
ter of the writers, the sources from which they drew, and their relation 
to each other. ‘The reply can only be the result of several other and 
deeper investigations, of which we must first await the issue. 

We are well aware of what has been done on this subject by learned 
men, such as Less and Paley; but we could give no epitome suited to 
the compass of these pages, even had we time for the purpose. 

There are cases, however, in which the reasoning that as such and 
such books are genuine, they are therefore credible, is perfectly correct. 
Any inference which we can draw from the mere supposition that the 
books are genuine, is not out of order, and may properly find a place in 
this connection. 

When I consider the character of the man whose portrait is drawn 
in the Gospels, I find it to be too lofty and noble for any Jewish mind 
to have invented. ‘The tranquil, quiet greatness of the sage, in whose 
heart lofty plans are unobservedly ripening, who, solely from the force 
of powers within, aspires to the highest mental elevation from the midst 
of the lowest and most ordinary circumstances, projects a moral trans- 
‘formation of his race, undertakes to purify the whole body of ethical 
science, devotes himself with unshaken energy to accomplish the task, 
pledges, and actually resigns his life in its behalf, regardless of the ig- 
nominious manner in which it is taken away ;—such a Regulus in the 


᾿ ws 
* 
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.* 65 


cause of human morality is too fine a conception for ordinary Jews, es- 
pecially in that period of national decay. 

Then, further, the manner in which this personage is conducted 
through all situations, in the midst of injuries, plots and dangers, among 
friends and enemies, is so peculiar, that no philosopher could have 
more beautifully depicted a philosopher’s life. Conscious dignity ac- 
companies him throughout, and in every scene of his life his conduct 
is the fittest for the occasion, the period and the persons concerned, and 
also, in every point of view, the noblest. He appears at first, and con- 
tinues through all the train of events, till the close of his life, to exhibit 
in himself that high moral cultivation, and to give in his conduct the 
pattern of that morality, which he was striving to introduce among men. 
To conduct and maintain such a character through all the circumstan- 
ces of life, is a dramatic attempt not suited to the capacity of invention 
possessed by ordinary and uncultivated Jews. 

Moreover, his pure and lofty views in respect to religion and morali- 
ty, his unprejudiced elevation above Judaism, his extensive insight in- 
to the plan and constitution of our moral nature, are far beyond that 
and preceding ages, and beyond the spirit of the whole nation, from 
which he steps forth a solitary phenomenon. Though Plato and Xeno- 
phon have sketched the character of Socrates, and delineated it in such 
a manner that scarce any mortal can equal this picture of a wise and 
moral man, we may presume that they superadded ideal lineaments, or 
at least exaggerated the real to the ideal. But our writers were not 
Platos. ‘The Jews had no Xenophon or Aeschines ; they could lend no 
perfection to their portrait, could impart little nobleness to their subject ; 
it was all they could do, to describe with unadorned simplicity that 
which they observed. He must have been such a person, he must have 
spoken and acted thus, or they could not have thus depicted him. 

Nothing is objected to this but the miraculous coloring given to his 
life. Permit me to make an incidental remark. Was he not, then, 
himself a miracle? In vain do we look around in his nation to find the 
circumstances which nourished this blossom, which matured this mind 
in so short a period, which in thirty years produced a Socrates, who 
surpasses the Athenian in his life and his death, in the grandeur of his 
views, in the purity of his knowledge and doctrines; and this at a time 
when it would seem that the highest talents must have been overcome 
by the power of prejudice, of superstition, of authority, of the narrow- 
mindedness of his contemporaries and the abject mental state of the na- 
tion. And how long did he labor for this transformation of the world, 
to pave the way for which, no human life would seem to be sufficient ? 
But a few yeaks: he passed by, to use his own words, as the lightning, 
which appeareth for an instant in the east, and shineth forth unto the 
west. (Matt. 24: 27.) 

He himself and the greatest event that ever occurred stand alone in 
the history of the world. How was Christianity established in three 
years? Where is the historic chain to this phenomenon? who has yet 
discovered its causes, and its connexion with existing and preceding 
events? Let us consider a little—if he himself and the change which 
he effected be so peculiar, ought we in a case in which the usual or- 
der of things is so far transcended, to expect the usual order of things ? 

; 9 


ξ΄ 
-ἰ 


f 


66 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


The nation in which he appeared was, we know, looking for mira- 
cles: by these alone whoever proposed changes or improvements in re~ 
ligion, could justify his claims as a teacher ; they were the sole condi- 
tion on which he could require belief and regard, and could count up- 
on success. But Jesus met with success. He found credit and adherents 
where he taught in his native land, without the aid of force, of wealth 
or the protection of the great, by which others were aided ; with nothing 
in his favor but himself. And, notwithstanding that with the co-opera- 
tion of the public magistrates he was seized and executed when he had 
scarcely unfolded his system, he found credit still after his death, and so: 
ardent was this faith that it speedily extended itself from his own coun- 
try, and nation, throughout the known world. Now if success in his na- 
tive land depended on the condition of his working miracles, how can 
we separate this condition from his actual success ? 


§ 10. 


The deduction of the credibility of the Acts of the Apostles from 
their genuineness is still more simple. ‘The Apostles continued long 
after Jesus’ death exposed to general observation, and the more notori- 
ous the enterprise of their Teacher became, the more were the eyes of 
men, for a series of years, fastened upon them. ‘Their history was 
then well known, as a multitude of men were scattered through alt 
countries who had been and were witnesses of their conduct and acts. 
How could they then consent to the promulgation of a work by their 
fellow-laborer, which extolled a constancy they did not possess, narra- 
ted sufferings and efforts in the cause of Christ, the falsity of which was 
notorious ; which specified actions in this and that place, of which no 
mortal knew and which witnesses could step forward to contradict? 
Could even their adversaries have contrived any thing more ruinous to 
their cause, than the promulgation of a narration describing as their 
achievements, things which had never happened and the falsity of 
which could be attested ? 


CHAPTER III. 


WRITING-MATERIALS—PUBLICATION—LOSS OF THE AUTOGRAPHS—COL- 
LECTION OF THE BOOKS—-THE CANON. 


δ 11. 


Ir is by no means to no purpose that we are so diffuse in our inves- 
tigations in regard to the books of the New Testament and even take 
notice of the writing-materials employed. We shall thus be enabled to 
obviate some difficulties which may hereafter arise. 

The ancients, it is known, wrote with a reed (calamus) and ink (of 
the preparation of which we cannot now speak) upon papyrus. This 


‘ 


AUTOGRAPHS, AND CANON. 67 
last substance is particularly worthy of notice. ‘The abundance of πά- 
. πύρος, (ap ἧς ὃ χάρτης κατασκευάζεται,) which Egypt produced, and 
the moderate price at which she exported the charta, made the writing- 
material of the king of Pergamus of questionable superiority ; so that 
the Romans of this period speak but seldom of the membrana, and even 
then frequently mean by it the membranam ex cortice, the bark of plants. 
The usual expression of this period is charta, χάρτης (2d Epistle of 
John, v. 12), and sometimes papyrus itself. 

The sheets were made froin the papyrus-plant which grew in Egypt, 
and more rarely in Syria and the vicinity of Babylon. The mem- 
branes of the plant, from which it was prepared, were not equally tough 
and durable. That was accounted the best from which the ἱερατιχή, 
or priests’ paper was made, which was intended for religious writings 
and the sacred documents of Egypt. Augustus gave the preference to 


a finer and more pliant sort; and this circumstance was enough to in- > 


duce the Romans to give the first rank to the Augustan species. That 
of Livia held the second rank, and the priests’ now held the third. 
This continued till the time of Claudius, who brought about a 
_change. The Augustan species was too thin, and too easily broken 
through. It was therefore retained for letter-writing only; for other 
purposes a firmer sort was selected.” 2 Thus, following the custom of 
the times, we have to distinguish two kinds of writing-material in the 
Scriptures ; one for the Epistles and another for the historical produc- 
tions. 


§ 12. 


The ancients seldom wrote their compositions with their own hand ; 
but dictated them to their freedmen and slaves. These were either 
ταχυγράφοι, amanuenses, notarti, rapid writers—or beautiful writers, 


καλλιγράφοι, librarit, and likewise βιβλιογράφοι. It was the office 


of these last to transcribe in an elegant manner what the former had ta- 
ken down hastily from dictation ; “it was their business to write out 
books and other lasting documents.? The αὖ epistolis, whose work is 
seen in books and on stones, appear to have been distinct from both. 
For the accuracy of the transcripts reliance was placed on an emenda- 
tor, or corrector, 0 δοκεμάζων τὰ γεγραμμένα. 

A large part of the books of the New Testament were dictated i in 
conformity with this custom. Paul notes as a peculiar circumstance, 
in the Epistle to the Galatians, that he had written to them with his 
own hand. (Gal. 6: 11.) In other cases he did not even write the salu- 
tation with his own hand, except for aspecial reason. (2 Thess. 3: 17. 1 
Cor. 16: 21. Coloss. 4: 18.) The amanuensis, who wrote the Epistle 
to the Romans, has mentioned himself in it. (Rom. 16: 22.) 

Historical works were always to receive, by means of the calligraph- 


1 Plinius Nat. Hist. L. XIII. ec. 22. 
2 Ibid. c. 23, 24. Strabo. XVII. p. 800. ἡ δὲ βελτίων ἡ ἱερατικη. 


3 (Euseb. H. Eccl. L. IV. c. 23.) De vita Constant. XIV. c. 36. Photius Cod. 
121. p. 162. Hoeschel. Montfaucon. Paleogr. Graec. Lib. I. ο. 5. 


4 Nysseni Epist. in Monument. ineditis Zacagnii. Epist. XII. p. 382. 


68 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


ist and the corrector, that extreme perfection which was required in 8 
writing that was to come into the hands of many readers. 


§ 13. 


Compositions of every kind could be multiplied only by transcripts. , 
When they had passed in this way to others, they were beyond the con- 
trol of the author, and were published. Christians had not the advan- 
tage of publication by means of booksellers till a later period.' 

The publication was preceded by the recitatio, which sometimes oc- 
curred in presence of only a few friends, and frequently with great 
preparations before many persons invited for the purpose.” In this 
way the author was known as such, and the world understood before- 
hand what it had to expect. If the composition pleased, it was request- 
ed for the purpose of transcription,® and then the work left the hands of 
its author and belonged to the public. : 

Frequently an individual sent his literary production to some distin- 
guished man, as a present, strena, munusculum; or prefixed his name to 
it, in order by this particular dedication of a work to him, to testify his 
friendship or esteem. Even if it wasonly presented or sent to him, and 
he accepted the gift, he was considered bound to introduce it to the 
world,or as the patronus libri, who had pledged himself to duties like those 
of the patronus personac. It was now his part to provide for its publi- 
cation by means of transcripts, to facilitate its access ad imina potenti- 
vrum and to be its defensor. There were other allusions of this nature 
to the Roman law which were applied to this subject.* 

Thus too did the first writers of the Christian school make their ap- 
pearance before their public. The Epistles were read aloud in those 
assemblies and churches to which they were directed, and then whoever 
wished to possess them made a copy of them himself or caused one to 
be made. ‘The historical productions were made public by the authors, 
per recitationem, in the Christian assemblies: the subject and the gen- 
eral interest in it procured them readers and transcribers. 

Luke dedicated his writings to an illustrious person named 'Theophi- 
lus. It thus became the duty of the latter to multiply copies of them 
and to distribute them among those who could appreciate the value of 
such a gift and had the strongest claims to his friendly attention. 


§ 14. 


These books, when once circulated among the multitude, encounter- 
ed all the fortunes which have befallen other works of antiquity. Yet 
copies were always deposited with the Presbyters, to be used in the 


1 Martial. L. I. Epigr. 6. Cleric. Ars. Crit. p. III. L.I.c. 2. § 10, 11. 


2 Such arecitation is fully described in Dialog. de Orat. c. 9. at the end of the 
works of Tacitus. 


3 Juvenal. Sat. III. 41, 42. 


4 Comp. the dedication of Statius to Melior uf the 2d book Sylvarwm, and. the 
dedication to Stella prefixed to the Ist and that to Marcellus to the 4th book. 
Martial Epigram. L. XII. c. 3. 


AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON. 69 


churches and to serve as authoritative documents for the copies of 
others. 

In this respect, it is true, only the original writings possessed an au- 
thority beyond objection, and we might hence expect that peculiar care 
would have been taken to preserve them to posterity. Yet we have no 
certain information where they were kept, how long they were to be 
seen, or by what accident they were lost to the world. For those passa- 
ges of the ancients which have been supposed to communicate informa- 
tion respecting the Autographs have in fact a totally different purport. 

Ignatius, the Martyr, for instance, expresses himself thus in his Epis- 
tle to the Philadelphians : 1 inyself have heard some say: If I do not 
find it ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις or ἀρχείοις, I do not give credence to the Gos- 
pel; and when I replied, that it was certainly written, they answered 
Oce προκεδίται, the other deserves the preference.” 

Now let it remain for a moment undecided what is the meaning of 
τὰ ἀρχαῖα or ἀρχεῖα, and which is the true reading. The connexion 
in which he says this is the following. 

He is speaking (6th section, seq.) ‘of Judaism, which was always aim- 
ing to impose itself upon the Christian sect, and to incorporate itself and 
all its appendages with the Christian system. Against this assumption 
of Judaism he expresses himself with earnestness, and declares that he 
himself with difficulty escaped the heresy. This subject he pursues as 
far as the 11th section, where he proceeds respecting this pretension : 
“T have even heard some say, If I do not find it ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, I do 
not believe what is said in the Gospel.” 

The section immediately following shows with equal clearness that 
he is speaking of Judaism. “I have nothing against the priests of the 
covenant,—they are worthy of honor; but far more excellent is the 
High Priest who enters into the holy place, and is the confidant of the 
secrets of God ... both are good, the Old Testament and the Gospel.” 

From this connexion, from the preceding and subsequent expres- 
sions of this father, it is easily seen that the Old and New Testaments 
are contrasted, and that, consequently, this τὰ ἀρχαῖα, in opposition to 
the Gospel, can signify only the Old Testament, which Judaizing per- 
sons had the audacity to prefer even above the New. 

Now which reading we are to adopt as the true sone, τὰ ἀρχαῖα, the 
books of the Old Testament, or ἀρχεῖα, the cases” in which the wri- 
tings of the Old Testament were kept, is a matter of indifference ; and I 
am ‘only bound to sustain the interpretation I have affixed to the ‘words, 
owt πρόκειται. 

The J udaizers, then, asserted that they would not believe the Gospel, 
when what it declared was not to be found in the Old Testament. 
- When Ignatius replied to them, it is actually written thus; they had 
the audacity to say The latter deserves the preference. 1 find προόχεισ-- 
fot in this somewhat unusual sense in Sextus _Empiricus, (Eypoth. L. 
I. ο. 4.) “Qs μηδένα μηδενὸς πρόκεισϑαι τῶν μαχομένων λόγων ὧν 
πιστότερον. In the larger Epistles of Ignatius a passage follows the 
pends above quoted, in which πρόκεισϑαν again appears in this sense : 

1 Trenaeus, Adv. Haer. Lib. IV. c. 32. n. 2. 

2 Schmid Historia Canonis, L. I. Sect. I]. § 81. p. 131, 132. 


70 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


οὐ γὰρ πρόκειται Ta ἀρχαῖα τοῦ πνεύματος, the written law has in no 
wise the preference over that of the spirit, etc. This interpolation 
therefore justifies the proposed interpretation. 

Tertullian in one instance appeals to litteras authenticas of the Apos- 
tles, which have sometimes been thought to mean originals.! 

But he is speaking in the context of the pure doctrines which he 
says could be reasonably expected to exist only in such churches as were 
established by the Apostles and had been addressed by them, as 
e. g. Rome, Corinth, etc. where still their authenticae litterae were read. 

Now as that which immediately precedes and follows relates merely 
to the purity of the doctrines which descended uncorrupted from suc- 
cessor to successor, the intervening assertion, that litterae authenticae 
were then extant, must have a like import. The litterae authenticae, 
then, were only Epistles which had been preserved pure and uncorrup- 
ted. 

He uses authenticum in this sense in another place likewise. He 
complains of the Latin version and accuses it of a designing or ignorant 
corruption of the Apostle’s words: ‘‘Sciamus plane non sic esse in. 
Graeco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut 
callidam aut simplicem eversionem.? Here authenticum stands oppo- 
sed to the inaccurate or falsely interpreted text. 

We have the most irrefutable proof, however, that Tertullian, and 
not only he but Clement, Origen, and the fathers of the church gener- 
ally knew nothing of the existence of autographs, in all those works in 
which they combat the heretics. We find them accusing Marcion and 
his sect of falsifying the Bible, and we find them sometimes perplexed 
with difficulties in their copies. All the elaborate arguments which 
they have deduced from the connexion, and from parallel passages in 
support of their readings,—all that Tertullian has sought to prove with 
so much particularity against Marcion, might have been spared, had 
the autographs been in existence. Reference might have been made 
in one word to their decision, for they would have been the only author- 
itative and supreme arbiters in doubtful cases between them and their 
adversaries. 


§ 15. 


Thus we seek in vain for the original MSS. at a time when nothing 
was known of them. They were lost, without so much as a hint to us 
by what events a possession so important to the church perished. How 
shall we explain this singular fact ? 

Some preceding observations will perhaps solve the difficulty. To 
speak first of the Epistles: though Paul and his companions wrote 
scarcely any of their compositions themselves, though they were writ- 
ten by Tertius or some other penman ab epistolis, the salutation at the 
end was generally attached by their own hand. This was sufficient to 
give them the value of originals, and a legitimate authority to determine 
respecting the text when errors arose. 


1 Tertullian. de Praescript. c. 36. 
2 Ibid. de monogam. c. 11. 


AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON. 71 


This circumstance, then, presents us no explanation. Perhaps the 
writing-material may afford us more satisfaction. It was the weak, 
easily-injured Augustan paper, or that of Claudius, upon which, accord- 
ing to the fashion of the times, letters were written. Now curiosity, 
devotion and industry occasioned many disfigurations in it before it was 
extensively circulated and copied. Thus, if a copy was often exposed 
to such ill-usage, it is easily seen that, with ever so good intentions, it 
could last but a few years; and if under very gentle treatment it should 
chance to last twenty or thirty years, the period from Nero to Trajan, 
or at any rate to Severus and Caracalla, would be long enough for its 
destruction. 

On the other hand, the writing-material of historical works was more 
durable and better fitted to brave the ravages of time ; but there were 
other circumstances which were peculiarly dangerous to the originals of 
these. After the ταχυγράφοι had taken them down from the mouth of 
the author, they were committed to the Calligraphist or Bibliographist, — 
who wrote them fairly, and conferred upon them the decent external ap- 
pearance which became such works. Then the corrector had his part 
to perform. ‘Thus a copy which was sent to a church or collection of 
Christians had already passed through three hands and was itself in fact 
only a transcript, little superior to others which were as beautiful. 

Let us now suppose, as it is very natural to do, that the same libra- 
rius who was employed to make this copy, made copies likewise for op- 
ulent individuals and other churches-—and there was no original at all, or 
there were perhaps ten or more of which none could claim superiority. { 

From these circumstances we can comprehend how the autographs 
entirely disappeared, though of so much importance to the ancients, 
without our having any knowledge of their fate. 


§ 16. 


The works which persons had in their possession were sent to each " 
other, and in this way were made collections of an author’s writings. — 
The Epistles of Ignatius were thus collected together. Polycarp of 
Smyrna sent those which he had to Philippi, and the church at Philippi 
sent hitn in return the compositions of this martyr which they possess- 
64.} Somewhat more than forty years before, the like occurred in re- 
gard to the works of the Apostles. Such a mutual exchange the 
churches at Laodicea and at Colosse made, in respect to Paul’s Epistles, 
(Coloss. 4: 16.) 

In this way churches communicated to other churches their apostoli- 
cal documents. This is what Tertullian well observes against Marcion, 
who did not pay equal deference to all the Gospels: the unequivocal 
declaration of those churches, says he, which were founded by the 
Apostles, testifies in favor of the other Gospels, which we have obtain-y/ 
ed through and from those churches.” 

Hence no writings could obtain a place in this collection, which were 
not supported by the testimony of the churches which received the 


1 Epistlola Polycarpi, near the close. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 36. } 2% 
2 Lib. IV. Adv. Marc. c. 4. 


72 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


Epistles from the Apostles, or by which the works were first published 
after being sent to them. 

‘hough some of these writings were directed to private men, as were 
Luke’s two historical books, the Epistle to Philemon, the 2d and 3d of 
John, or those to Titus and Timothy, they were either friends of the 
author whose testimony is unexceptionable, or men endowed with apos- 
tolical authority in teaching, whose credit is superior to that of the 
churches which were instructed by them. 

It has been inferred from an expression of Peter, that the collection 
of the Pauline writings was in his times complete. For he reminds his 
readers (2 Peter 3: 15, 16), that his beloved brother Paul also, accord- 
ing to the wisdom given unto him, had written the same to them, as al- 
so in all his epistles, in which he speaks of this subject. But the ex- 
pression all is restricted by what follows—all in which he has mention- 
ed the subject of the coming of the Lord. Yet it is evident from this 
that he supposes his readers already in possession of several Pauline 
Epistles, that they were then very widely circulated, and were to be 
found in great numbers, in various places. 

When several of these were once written. together, it would not be 
long before the idea of a complete collection would arise. There was 

J already one Codex before the world, viz. that of the Old Testament, 
and this suggested the idea of forming one for the new dispensation. 
The parallel between the two dispensations, the xavv7j and παλαεὰ dve- 
ϑήκη, which had already been pointed out by our Lord and extended 
by Paul, favored and occasioned such imitations. 

The collection was early finished in all those churches between 
which a close connexion and reciprocal intercourse could be maintain- 
ed, i. e. in those which were near the borders of the Mediterranean sea, 
where under the Roman dominion three quarters of the globe met to- 
gether in brisk traffic and commercial intercourse. Churches within 

Ζι, this sphere of universal activity, as e.g. the churches at Philippi and 

Smyrna, had certainly a complete collection in the days of Trajan. 
Otherwise they would not have undertaken another which in impor- 

vise 7 tance bears no comparison with this, viz. a collection of the Epistles of 

‘ae [gnatius which was made by Polycarp. 

᾿ Some one may doubtingly ask, Is it true, as is here assumed, that as 

early as the times of the Apostles, christian churches were thus con- 

‘ nected? We must suppose that they were. All Christians considered 
themselves as brethren wherever they might be, and all churches as 
-mutually bound to each other. The connexion, χούνωνία δόσεως nal. 
λήψεως, the alleviation of the necessities of saints, most certainly exist- 
ed. When Paul was commissioned by the Apostles to go to the heath- 
en, attention to the poor was enjoined. (Galat.2: 10.) This connex- — 

ue ion extended not merely to the churches of Syria and Asia Minor, to 
Akee, Antioch (Acts 11: 29), and the Galatian churches (1 Cor. 16: 1, 2, 8), 
-gllact but also to societies of believers in Europe, of which there were so ma- 
. ny in Macedonia and Achaia. (2 Cor. 8: 1, seq. 9:4. Rom. 15: 26.) 
Efu4. This beautiful agreement in works of love bound the European and 
Asiatic churches to the native land of Christianity, which was then the 
object of their benevolence, and bound them and all to each other; _ for 

in adversity each had a claim upon the rest for succour. 


x 


AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON. 2 


It is also well known, that Christians, when they undertook a journey, 
were commended to the assistance and kind offices of the churches 
(Acts 15: 27. Rom. 16: 1,2. Coloss. 4: 10), and received peculiar 
passports συστατικας émvotodas (2 Cor. 3: 1), which certainly suppo- 
ses the existence ofa social connexion. Nothing could be more natu- 
ral, according to Christian regulations, than the maintenance of mutual 
intercourse. ΤῸ lodge strangers, to wash their feet (1 Tim. 5: 10), to 
practise Christian hospitality, to assist the brethren in their affairs, were 
works of piety strictly enjoined (Rom. 12: 18, Heb. 13: 2. 1 Pet. 4: 9.) 
We say nothing of the fact that private individuals on occasion sent 
salutations to distant brethren (Rom. 16: 21, 23. Philipp. 4: 22), and 
churches to churches—the churches of Asia to that at Corinth—the 
church at Babylon to those of Asia Minor (1 Cor. 16: 19. 1 Pet. δ: 18. 

We may admit an exception as to churches situated farther from the 
circle of activity and commercial intercourse, which would come more 


Cue IV 


lad 


slowly to the knowledge of certain of the biblical books. From this pan 7a. 


circumstance, it seems to me, we may explain in part the doubts which 
prevailed in particular churches in respect to some of them. 
Under Trajan’s second successor, Antoninus Pius, Marciorf* as we 


‘ 


A 


have seen above, made an eclectic collection, for the use of his disci- | 
ples, from the Codex of the Catholic church, which Codex must conse- | 


quently, have been in existence when he perpetrated the outrage. Val- | 
Sand his sect possessed a similar one, containing all those books | 


entinu 
which the fathers towards the close of the 2d century found in the Co- 
dex of the orthodox church. Valentinus therefore must have possessed 
it entire. 

It was the distinguished and peculiar prerogative accorded to these 
writings, and for a long time the only mark of distinction which could 
be given them, that they were publicly read in the christian assemblies. 
As in the religious meetings of the Jews this honor was usually confer- 
red only upon the Law and the Prophets, so among the Christians this 
eminent prerogative was granted only to the writings of the Apostles 
together with the Old Testament which they retained from the Jews. 
Thus Peter reckons Paul’s Epistles, while the author was still alive, 
among the γραφας, Holy Scriptures (2 Pet. 3: 15,16.) And, as the 
Jews called their books by the general title, the Law and the Prophets, 
so the Christians comprehended theirs under the denomination, the Gos- 
pels and the Apostles, and compared or contrasted them together, νόμου, 
προφήται, εὐαγγέλια καὶ ἀπόστολοι." 

As these compositions were acknowledged to be γοαφή 
ture, and as such were entitled to be read publicly in the assemblies, 
the collection of them could be delayed no longer, and then the books 
could no longer be circulated without inspection, or be mutilated, en- 
larged or altered at pleasure. They were under the protection of the 
church to which the collection pertained, and which was instructed 
and edified from it. 


1 [gnat. Epist. ad Philadelph. ὃ 5. Epistola ad Diognetum c. XI. Eira φόβος 
νόμου ἄδεται καὶ προφήτων χάρις γινώσκεται, καὶ εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἵδρυται, καὶ 
ἀποστόλων παράδοσις φυλάσσεται. Just. Martyr. Apol. Maj. c. 67. Tertull. de 
Praescript. c. 36. Comp. Apologet. c. 39. Hippolyt. de Christo et Antichristo. 58. 


10 


ΕἾ 


“Holy Μονίν ἢ 


74 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


From this peculiar prerogative, they were denominated dednpoorev- 
μένα βιβλία and δεδημοσιευμέναι γραφαί, public books, books made 
public ; while, on the other hand, such others as were in the hands of 
Christians and were not permitted to be publicly read, were called 
ἀπόκρυφα, ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία, libri secreti and absconditi.| We find, 
too, that in opposition to the δεδημοσιευμένα βιβλία, the others were 
denominated sdewrixa.? 


LL, 4. ‘This exclusive prerogative of the apostolic writings is well exhibited 


aud 
Ἢ 


by an ancient teacher, in speaking of Hermas. It is proper to read 
him, says he, but he can never be made public with the Prophets or 
Apostles. 

The (so called) canones Apostolorum, after enumerating (Can. 84.) 
the sacred books, say concerning the Constitutions of Clement, that 
they should not be made public to all: ἃς οὐ yon δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάν-- 


ζῶν. 


Origen remarks as follows on Matt. 27:9: “This is found in none 
of the public books in publicis seripturis ; (the text is extant in Latin 
only) in none of those which are read in the church or synagogue ; but 
only in the secret book of Elias, in secretis Eliae.’”* 

He observes in another place respecting the mode of Isaiah’s death, 
that nothing concerning it is to be found ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσι- 
ευμένοις βιβλίοις, but only ἐν ἀποκρύφοις. 

This mark of distinction so restricted the Canon, that no bodk could 
find admission which did not derive its origin from the authorized mes- 
sengers of Christianity. 


ᾧ 18. 


But this arrangement was gradually undermined. Certain churches 
received letters upon memorable occasions from celebrated teachers 
and preserved them to be read as memorials and for the purpose of edi- 


1 The word ἀπόκρυφον, liber absconditus, as Augustine expresses it, is not de- 
rived from the technical critical language of the Greeks, but from thut of the 
Jews, who called such writings 54153 (Hottinger Thes. Philol. L. II. ¢. 2. sec. 
1) ‘For they were not deposited in the book-chest in which the Holy Scriptures 
lay, but in separate receptacles in concealed places. Thus, as the learned agree, 
Hezekiah concealed a book on medicine. (Mishnah, Tract. Pesach. c. 4. n. 9.— 
ἡἢ, πη τὶ ὨΝΞῚ spo 725.) A biblical MS. which had three errors on one leaf was 
required to be corrected : one with four to be concealed. (Gemar. Baby]. Tract. 
Menachot. c. III. sect. 7.) Justin translates it by ἀφανὲς ποιεῖν. (Dial. cum 
Tryph. c. 120.) “πὸ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων μέχρι viv ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν γραφῶν, says he, 
have I taken arguments, ἃ εἰ ἐνενοήκεισαν οὗ διδάσκαλοι ἡμῶν εὖ tote ὅτε ἀφανὴ 
ἐπεποιήκεισαν. In opposition to ἀφανὲς ποιεῖν, Origen makes use of the expres- 
sion φανερὰ βιβλία. (Epist. ad African. c.9.) The first in whom I meet with the 
expression, ἀπύκρυφος, is Clement of Alexandria. (L. III. ο. 4. Strom. p. 524. 
Venet.) “Hedin δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ δόγμα ἔκ τινος ἀποκρύφου. The expression is fre- 
quent in Origen, and is sometimes to be found in Tertullian. 

2 Lambec. Biblioth. Caes. Vind. Tom. ITI. p. 45. 46. 


3 Anonym. apud Muratori, (Antiq. Med. Aev. Tom. III. p. 853.) ‘Et ideo 
legi quidem cum oportet, sed publicare in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas 
completum numero, neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest.” 


4 Origenes Vol. I[I. p. 816. De la Rue. 
5 Ibid. Tom. X. In Matth. Vol. ΠΙ. p. 465. 


AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON. 75 


fication upon stated days of the year. Thus the church at Corinth re- 
ceived a letter from Clemens Romanus, with which they refreshed their 
memories from time to time. Probably the case was the same with the 
Epistles of Ignatius. By degrees such letters came to be read in other 
churches also, so that e. g. Clement’s Epistle received this testimony of 
public veneration in very many churches.'! Sometimes this honour was 
accorded likewise to Hermas.* | 

Little as this custom could deceive learned men, it yet tended to mis- 
lead the common people, and sometimes even the ministry, and it was 
to be apprehended that such writings would in this way usurp the au- 
thority of canonical books. One of our oldest MSS., the Codex Alex- 
andrinus, as is well known, contains Clement’s Epistle; and the Ca- 
nones Apostolorum before mentioned have enumerated two of this fa- 
ther’s Epistles among the sacred books. > 

It therefore became necessary to distinguish and separate what time / 
began to confound, and to take sure means to put a stop to error. 
Hence arose catalogues of the sacred books which received the name / \ 
of Canon. i 

I no where find the word in this sense before the third century, when 
it first appears in the writings of Origen, and only in passages which are ψ 
extant in the old translation alone. Towards the close of his pref- 
ace to Solomon’s song, he says; ‘‘ Quae in scripturis, quas canonicas 
habemus, nusquam legimus, in apocrypho tamen inveniuntur ;” and 
again on Matth. 27: 9: “ Hoc in nullo regulari libro (xavovexm) posi- 
tum invenimus, nisi in secretis Eliae.’’? 

In the fourth century it is common with Christian writers, and with 
them xavwy is a rule of faith, and a canonical book means an authori- χ' 
tative book in matters of faith. Origen says, in the preface before 
mentioned, of such books as were not of this number, “‘ non admitti ad 
auctoritatem.” Jerome expresses himself in a similar manner in his 
preface to Proverbs: “They cannot be admitted in confirmation of the 
religious tenets of the church” (“non admitti .... ad auctoritatem ec- 
clesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.”) Ruffinus closes the Canon 
which he presents in his work on the Apostles’ Creed, with the re- 
mark : “ These are the books on which our fathers founded their arti- 
cles of belief.” He then proceeds: ‘“‘ The un-canonical books may in- 
deed be read, but never used in proof of articles of belief,’ (non tamen 
proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.) Athanasius says, 
in presenting us with his catalogue, that the doctrines which lead to 
eternal blessedness are revealed only in the canonical scriptures ; they 
alone are the fountains of salvation.* 

We may here pass by the other significations of the word xavay ; 
for in reference to the books of the New Testament it means the rule 


v 


1 Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. IV. c. 23.40. ἐν πλέισταις ἐκκλησίαις ἐπὶ τοῦ 
κοινοῦ δεδημοσιευμένη. 


2 Kuseb. Η. E. L. III. c. 3. 66. 
3 Tom. III. App. Ed. De la Rue. p. 36, and 916. 


4 Athanas. Fragm. Festal. Epist. Opp. L. II. Ταῦτα πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου... 
ἐν τουτοῖς μόνοις τὸ τὴς εὐσεβείας διδασκάλιον εὐαγγελίζεται. 


76 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


of faith, and that is said to be canonical which is authorised to declare 
this rule.! 


§ 19. 


/ t The oldest catalogue extant, in my opinion, is that of an anonymous 

ev A writer of the church of Rome ; it belongs to the beginning of the third 

century. ‘Those who place it higher do not probably take into consid- 

ἔραν eration how decidedly the author rejects the Epistle to the Hebrews, as 

_the disputes respecting it were first expressly turned to its prejudice by 

Gaius, the Roman Presbyter. Some indeed have held Gaius or Caius to 

C be the author of the catalogue. It contains the four Gospels, the Acts 

and thirteen Epistles of Paul. That to the Hebrews he maintains to be 

the production of an Alexandrian of the Marcionite sect. He mentions, 

besides, the Epistle of Jude and two of John’s with his Apocalypse. He 

_».» then, however, adds the Wisdom of Solomon and the Revelation of Pe- 
ter, apparently as christian Scriptures. , 

His procedure in regard to Peter is really remarkable. He omits 

his first Epistle, respecting which there was not a doubt in all antiquity, 

_ and speaks of his Apocalypse instead. Such a mistake must not pass 

without closer examination. 

This ancient fragment has come down to us through a barbarous 
copyist, and evidently not in its original Janguage, but in a version 
which is not nearly so good as that of Irenaeus. In many places a 
glimmer of the Greek text which was its basis is perceptible? With 
this supposition, let us examine more attentively the words used in 
speaking of Peter and his Apocalypse. His language is “ Epistola sane 
Judae et superscriptae Johannis duae in Catholica habentur. Et sapi- 
entia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. Apocalypsis etiam 
Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ec- 
clesia nolunt.” aia 

I imagine that we ought to punctuate thus: “ Epistola sane 
superscriptae Johannis duae in Catholica habentur, et sapie 
onis in honorem ipsius scripta, apocalypsis etiam Johannis. 
tantum,” ete. rl ae 

If we connect ‘‘ Apocalypsis e! 
not see how he could say “‘ tantun 


HN 
ΕΣ ἊΝ 


ταὶ 


Its other significations, as 6. g.,a church-regulation, a catalogue of holy 
itensils, etc., may be seen in Cave Dissert. II. in Append. ad Hist. Litt. Suicer 
Thesaurus Philol. V. Kavejy.—Zonaras in Ep. ὑμῶν Basilii et Amphi- 


loch. c. 6. 
2 Muratori. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Aev. T. III. p. 854. _ puch a passage, 6. g.,i8 
the following : “Sic enim non solum visorem, etc.” οὕτως γὰρ ov μόνον ϑεατὴ 
καὶ ἀκουστὴν τε καὶ γραμματέα πάντων ϑαυμασίων τοῦ κυρίου καϑ᾽ ἐξῆς ἕαυ 


τῷ 
ὃν ὁμολογεῖ. The most difficult passage is “ Acta aut m omnium apostolorum 
‘sub uno libro scripta sunt Lucas optime Theophile comprehendit, qui sub pre- 
sentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et semote passione etri evidenter decla- 
rat, sed protectionem Panli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.”’ If we turn it 
into Greek it is plain: Tas δὲ πράξεις ἱπάντων τῶν ἁποστόλων γραφείσας εἰς wi 


av βίβλον Aovues τῷ κρατίστῳ Θεοφίλῳ συνέκλεισε, Cre κατὰ μέρος ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ 
3 ὩΣ ἡ ~ > τς 
παρ ἐγενηϑησαν, καϑιὼς, παρεκτὸς τοῦ Πέτρου παϑήματος, σαφῶς ἐμφανίζει, 
‘ 4» ’ > 
καὶ ἐδημίας Παύλου ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως. πανίας ἐπιδημούντος. 


AUTOGRAPHS, AND CANON. 77 


Apocalypses—one was enough. Or, if dantum recipimus expresses an 
inferior degree of respect, yet it relates only to Peter and his Apoca- 
lypse, as the further explanation of tantum recipimus shows; quam, 
which, being in the singular number and referring only to one, i. e. the 
last mentioned Apocalypse. Thus a period must certainly be placed 
after apocalypsis etiam Johannis. 

Let us now take the words thus, and then turn the incomprehensible 
et Petri tantum recipimus into Greek : καὶ Πέτρου μόνον παραδεχόμ- 
εϑα. Now by changing μόνον to μόνην we obtain good sense and 
have the first Epistle of Peter, which is wanting in the catalogue. He 
has been speaking of the Catholic Epistles and now says: xa? Πέτρου 
μόνην παραδεχόμεϑα--ἃπά of Peter we receive only one. Now, how- 
ever, the other clause is not consistent with this, unless it be worded 
thus: alteram quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt, But if we turn 
it into Greek, we shall soon see how he obtained his guam quidam ex 
nostris and that he had at the bottom the sense suggested : zal Πέτρου 
μόνην “παραδεχόμεϑα, ἧς mage’ τινὲς ἡμῶν ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐν ἐχκλη- 
σίᾳ ov ϑέλουσι. Thus, instead of Peter’s s Apocalypse, we have the first 
Epistle of Peter together with the second, which last is disputed by 
some. y 

He omits the Epistle of James, as did many of that period. He ad- ᾿ 
mits only two of John’s among the Catholic Epistles; yet it is to be ob- 
served that, as we shall see in the proper place, there is some evidence 
that the occidental nations considered the 2d Epistle as merely a post- 
script to the first. If this were really the case, that which is now the 
third must have been regarded by them as the second. 

Origen’s Catalogue ranks next in point of antiquity. This is found 
in his Homilies on Joshua, where he gives an allegorical interpretation 
of the trumpets blown before Jericho. The first of the Evangelists who «“ 
oer the trumpet, says he, was Matthew, then Mark, and then John. 

t blew it in two Epistles ; ; SO too James and Jude. John began his 
2w with his Epistle and the Apocalypse; and Luke with his 
a A however, Paul drowned the sound of all Ὁ 
last ῷ Compare with this another cata- ΝΜ 
ved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 6: 25 )pr2ge | 
be 


le opinions were various respect- 
ing the 2d of | Peter and the 2d and 3 


3d of John. He has made too, in 9 
another place, a similar remark respecting the Epistle of James. 
Of at least as early date as that of Origen, is the Canon of the Syri- 
ac church, which we d from their oldest version. It comprehends 
the Gospels, Acts, Δ, ὅθ Epistles of Paul—of the Catholic Epis- 
th it contains that of James, the first of Peter, and of John,—and, as I , 


ink, the Apocalypse 
It is observable 


the Syrians have incorporated with their ver 
the Epistle of Ja yhich does not occur in the Roman catalo 
This confirms the fact of the influence of geographical circumstances. - ᾿ 
Syria must, from its situation, have become acquainted with the Epistle 

of James earlier, and have been sooner and better informed as to its 

author, than other countries. 


* 


obi, 
3.24. thee 
a 


78 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


§ 20. 


The statements of Eusebius are especially worthy of our attention, 
inasmuch as he has not only given us the catalogue of his church, as 
others have done, but has presented for our survey a historical view of 
the public decisions of various churches and the individual opinions of 
ecclesiastical writers. 

The principal passage is in the 3d book of his Church-history, chap. 
25th, in explanation of which the 3d and 24th chapters of the 3d book 
may be consulted.' 

He drew up this sketch of public and private opinions respecting 
the Scriptures of the New Testament under the guidance of ecclestastt- 
4. _ caltradition, κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν (III. 25); under 
‘which he included παράδοσιν ἄγραφον (IIT. 39°), or oral information, 
“éyyougov, written communication, or d¢ ὑπομνημάτων, by means of 
Pq ‘4 monuments (IV. 21, and 37.), and lastly ἀρχαίου ἐθοῦς παράδοσιν, 

ancient custom, or authentic church-usage, (V. 23, 24.» 
ἢ "χὰ From these materials he formed his collection? He states the estab- 
»Ἅ yA lished usage of the church (II. 23. III. 31.), and always extracts the 
τὴς individual opinions of the fathers respecting certain scriptures from 
“ὁ, Yrrsheir works, treating particularly of their circumstances in life, their 
.&.9, merits and labors,—observing, in passing to the principal passage, that 
he intends to bring forward the testimonies of the ancients on this sub- 
ject individually down to his time. (III. 24.) 
This is clear from the very character of the catalogue. In it he 
a promises to speak more fully in its place of the varieties of opinion con- 
ony cerning the Apocalypse, which are here only hinted at. He says that. 
Hircet, even the rejected books have ever been esteemed genuine by many, 
ναὶ ον γνώριμα τοῖς πολλοῖς. He distinguishes two opinions respecting the 
ok. ἢ 2d and 3d of John; one of which attributed them to the Evangelist, and 
ey the other to another John. WHe notices also the variety of opinion 
27262 4}. among Christians respecting the Gospel of the Hebrews. The contro- 
"δά xerted Scriptures, he says further on, are yet known to most teachers 
““in the church: παρὰ πλεέϊστοις τῶν ExxhnoLactinwy γιγνωσκομένας. 
veo ExKAgT he expression πλεΐστοις ἐκκλησιαστικῶν, respecting the meaning of 
-6 6098. ἐς which all are not agreed,” is elliptical, and must be filled out by ἀνδρῶν, 
ay ἘΠΕ as we are informed by Eusebius; for he has done this in the next 
a An explanation of these passages has been attempted by many learned men 
corned for various purposes. Chr. Fred. Weber, ‘‘ Prufung der Hauptstelle des Eusebi- 
5 us, vom Kanon,” in the addenda to the ““ Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, Tub. 
ber ge 4170] .”’—Joh. Ern, Chr. Schmidt on the Canon of Eusebius in Henke’s ‘‘ Maga- 
ΜΝ zin fur Religionsphilosophie.” 5th Bd. 38 St.—Carl. Christ. Flatt, on the Ca- 
p non of Eusebius, in the “ Magazin fur Christ]. Dogmat. und Moral.” 7th und 8th 
44 St. These writings Paul Joach. Sigism. Voge! has digested and reviewed in 
- / ft; ὺ his Commentationis de Canone Eusebiano Pars. 1. Erlang. 1809. Pars. II. 1810. 
ἐ ars. 1Π1.1811. The most recent work on this subject, is Fred. Licke. “ Ueber 
) ἔλα. den Neutestamentl. Kanon des Eusebius. Berlin 1816.” 


‘Autre 2 Vogel (Comment. de Can. Euseb. pars. 1. p. 8.) thinks ἐχκλησιαστικοὶ to mean 
k 5 here, Christiani Catholici, because Euseb. elsewhere subjoins συγγραφέυς. Yet 
" the πλεῖστοι ὅσοι τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν (III. 39.), are certainly teachers. Even in 

II. 25. where Du Valois takes the meaning to be Catholicus, a writer is meant. 


' AUTOGRAPHS, AND CANON. 79 
aR Tay oe 
clause : τῶν κατὰ διαδοχὰς ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τις ἀνήρ from which we Clauaa ἐ9 
see likewise that they were employed in the office of the ministry. ἐν συγ αλλ 
These expressions, taken together, show that, as we said in the be- 54, dil 
ginning, this is not a cafalogue of a single party, but a sketch of public Pad ante 
decisions, the individualopinions of teachers, from various sources. It ---- 
was his object, after enumerating the books which were universally ac- At a+ 
knowledged, to give a general view of the past and present opinions as σ OA 
to certain books, nearly as far down as the great Nicene Council. Cours, ἢ 
In this catalogue is comprehended, if not wholly, at least to a great Sper. . 
extent, the various traditions by means of documents, inasmuch as he a 
had before him the literary productions of antiquity from Africa, Asia, D/recorde 
Greece Proper, and even from the Latin churches. On the other hand, 
what he says of church-usage, must have been drawn from more limit- 
ed knowledge. The usage of individual churches could not be learnt 
so well from any writings, as from attentive observation of circumstan- 
ces and intercourse with neighboring contemporaries in the ministry. 
Hence the statements on this subject seem to have reference to Asia 
merely. So much respecting the design of the historian and the aids 
which he employed in its execution. Now as to the actual execution. 
Eusebius has been speaking of the writings of the Apostles ; then of 
the Gospels, and John’s writings in particular. (III. 24.) Led on by 
his train of remark, he resolves (III. 25.) to enumerate in their order, 
from the beginning, the books of the New Testament of which he has 
just spoken, τὰς δηλωϑεῖσας youqas.! 
In order to elucidate this catalogue thus executed, we will first notice 
the technical language of the ancients as to things of this kind ; that is 
to say, the usual phrases and expressions of Grecian criticism. A gen- 
uine work is called γνήσιον σύγγραμμα: the Greeks say too, ὁμολογεῖται 
αὐτοῦ εἶναι for it is this or that author's. |The opposite of the γνγσι- 
ov was the κίβδηλον, the ὑποβολιμαῖον, the νόϑον. The designations 
ἀμφισβητεῖται, διστάξεται, ἀμφιβάλλεται and ἀμφιεδοξεῖται ὁ διάλο- 
γος, ἡ γραφή, are intermediate expressions. By these words they denot- 
ed a division into the decidedly genuine, the decidedly spurious, and 
those respecting which opinions differ. ‘There is no fourth member of the 
division, and if the Christians possessed a peculiar species of writings, 
it of course could not fall under these heads. Origen, the first ecclesi- 
astical writer extant in whom we find a classification, notices these 
three divisions into γνήσιον, voor, μικτόν," genuine, spurious, and 
mixed, i. e. what some held genuine, others spurious. 


1 Eusebius intends nothing more by δηλωϑεῖσας γραφάς than writings which 
had just been spoken of, the Scriptures before mentioned. Asit has been sup- 
posed, that there is something peculiar in the expression, ( Vogel Comment. de 
Can. Euseb. pars I. p. 4.—Liicke tiber den Neutestamentl. Kanon. p. 9.) I must 
fortify my interpretation. Eusebius uses this expression in the same way res- 
pecting Josephus’ Antiquities, which had been before cited, (I. 8.) ταῦτα μὲν 
οὖν ἐν τῇ δηλωϑείση γ, αφηΐ, and likewise (I. 9) κατὰ τὴν δηλωϑεῖσαν αὑτοῦ γρα-- 
giv ; and further on, (iL. 7.) after speaking of Philo’s book, περὶ βίου ϑεωρητι-- 
κοῦ, he says at the end : “ This may be seen ἐκ τῆς δηλωϑεῖσας τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἕστο-- 
ρίας. (IV. 14.) ἐν τῇ δηλωϑείσῃ γραφη. (V. 4.) ἐν τῇ δηλωϑείση yougy. (III. 35.) 
τὸν δηλωϑέντα τρόπον. (IV.1.) ὁ δηλωϑείς ἐπίσκοπος, &c. 


2 Comment. ἴῃ Joan. To. 13. Vol. IV. p. 226. He asks Heracleon, who had 
quoted the κήρυγμα Πέτρου : πότερόν ‘ore γνήσιόν ἐστιν, ἢ νόϑον, ἢ μικτόν ὃ 


"᾿ fy 
/ ὃ 7% 


80 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 


Eusebius pays deference to the wsus loquend?, in the expressions γνή- 
ovov or ὁμολογούμενον and vo@ov: for the middle member of the di- 
vision, he selects ἀντελεγόμενον. According to the custom of profane 
critics, Eusebius recognizes only three gradations or classes. Re- 
specting these, no doubt would ever have arisen, were he not chargeable 
soon after with confusion in his language or in his sense. Let us first, 
however, examine the Catalogue, before we meddle with its termination.) 

He distributes all the books, then, which really belong to the Apos- 
tles, or have been aspirants to ‘the honor, under three titles : ὁμολογού- 
μένα, acknowledged ; ἀντελεγόμενα, against which doubts are preva- 
lent ; voda, which make unfounded pretensions to be ranked among 
the apostolical works, or rather are ranked by the ignorant among them. 

In the first division of the Homologoumena, he includes the four 
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, the first of 
John and Peter. To these, he further says, may be added, if thought 
fit, the Apocalypse. 

In the second division, the disputed books, he classes the Epistle of 
James, of Jude, the 2d of Peter, and the 2d ‘and 3d of John. 

To the third division, he assigns the Acta Pauli, the Shepherd, Pe- 
ter’s Apocalypse, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Instructions of the 
Apostles. Here too, he adds, John’s Apocalypse may be inserted by 
any one who thinks fit; for some reject it, others place it among the 
acknowledged books. Some have reckoned the Gospel of the Hebrews 
also among these, and it is most ardently revered by converts from 
Judaism. 

Let us now examine each class in its order, and consider attentively 
each of the writers’ expressions. 

The ὁμολογούμενα are writings that are really authentic, not coun- 
terfeit, ἀληϑεῖς καὶ ἀπλαστοι, and as he expresses himself in passing 
to this passage, the genuine writings, γνήσιαι γραφαί, of those authors, 
whose names they bear, writings respecting which the ancients had no 
doubt, (III. 24.) and ‘which the fathers of old have quoted in their 
works as undoubted : οἷς --ὐὶ πάλαι πρεσβύτεροι ὡς ἀναμφίλεκτοις, 
ἐν τοῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν κατακέχρηνται συγγράμμασι. (III. 3.) 

The ἀντιλεγόμενα are writings known to most men in the ministry, 
παρὰ πλεΐστοις τῶν ἐχχλησιαστικῶν, and by many regarded as genu- 
ine, γνώριμα πολλοῖς. (III. 25.)! Their want of historical evidence 
prevents their being universally acknowledged ; for they have been 
mentioned by | but few of the old fathers in their works : ov πολλοὶ τῶν 
παλαιῶν αὐτῶν ἐμνημόνευσαν. (II. 23.) As respects church-usage 
they were in most churches publicly read like other sacred books ; μέτα 
τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλεῖσταις AEAHMOZIETMENA éxndnotass (II. 
Q3.)—év πλείσταις ἐχκλησίαις παρὰ πολλοῖς AEAHMOSIE YME- 
NA. (II. 31.) 

The voi are writings which are not to be entirely discarded, which 
were written by good men from good motives, but from their titles are 
likely to mislead people to regard them as apostolical works, to which 


1 This signification is affixed to the expression γνώρεμος in Eusebius, ITT. 38. 
where he says of the 2d Epistle of Clement : οὐ μὴν &F ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ 
ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεϑα. 


AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON. 81 


ι 

prerogative they have not so much as a doubtful claim; 6. g. the Acta 
Pauli, Apocalypsis Petri, Doctrinae Apostolorum, &c. That this is 
the meaning of the historian, we see in the sequel, where he carefully 
distinguishes them from writings of heretics, under the name of Apos- 
tles, such as the Gospel of Peter, and of Thomas, the Acts of Andrew 
and John, and declares that the last are far from meriting a rank ἐν τοῖς 
νόϑοις, and do not merit any classification, but are to be utterly reject- 
ed as presumptuous and impious stuff. Here we have a species of 
Christian literature, for which profane criticism has no peculiar denom- 
ination ; and hence Eusebius found no place in his catalogue for books 
written by the heretics.! 

We may now pass to some particular observations on the expressions 
of the historian. In the first class he names without any limitation the 
Epistles of Paul, and passes over in silence the disputes which have 
arisen respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet this fact did not es- 
cape the knowledge of the historian; for he elsewhere uses these 
words: “Fourteen Epistles of Paul are widely known and indubitable ; 
yet it is to be remembered that some, tev, have rejected the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, under the pretext that the church at Rome does not ac- 
knowledge it as one of Paul’s writings.” (III. 3.) 

These some cannot have been Romans, as the whole church at Rome 
rejected it. ‘The expression is much too limited, however, to admit of 
its denoting the Western Christians generally. Greeks were intended ; 
but—as we may see from the observation prefixed, “ Fourteen Epistles 
of Paul are widely known and indubitable,’—these some had no influ- 
ence upon the opinion of the oriental and Greek churches. They were 
but individuals, and so insignificant, that the historian thought them 
not worthy of mention where he treated expressly of the canon. 

Further, he places the Apocalypse in both the first and last class; 
each time with the words “‘ whoever thinks fit,’”—“‘ for,” he adds, “‘ some 
reject it, others class it under the ὁμολογούμενα." Thus it more pro- 
perly belonged to the second class, among the disputed writings. But 
the matter had not come to such a pass that the controversy could be 
laid aside, and the book classed among the disputed books, until a fu- 
ture generation should decide “ sine ira et studio.” For the contest, 
as Eusebius asserts elsewhere, was still kept up with zeal on both sides: 
ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερον ἔτι νῦν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς περιέλκεται ἡ δόξα. (H.E. 11..-“2. 
24.) But how could one party decide that it was generally acknowl- 
edged, a decision which could proceed only from all? Certainly they 


1 Hitherto Eusebius has carefully kept the various classes distinct and free 
from confusion. Yet it has been inferred from what he says of James’ Epistle : 
toréov δὲ ws νοϑείεται μὲν (11. 23), that he confounds the γόϑα and ἀντιλεγόμε-- 
va, But νοϑεύεται dues not mean νόϑον ἐστί, but νόϑον νομίζεταε ὑπό τινων, 
which is equivalent to ἀντελέγεται. See Eustath. in Odyss. ψ. p. 1948, Ed. 
Rom: toréoy δὲ ore κοτὰ τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν ἱστορίαν ᾿“ριστάρχος καὶ Agrotogdyng, 
οἱ κορυφαῖοι τῶν τότε γραμματικῶν, εἰς τὸ ὡς ἐῤῥήϑη, ἀσπασίοιο------ἰκόντο : Od. 
ψ. 306, περατοῦσι τὴν Οδυσσείαν, τὰ ἐφεξῆς ἕως τελοῖς νοϑεύοντες. οὗ δὲ τοιοῦτοι 
πολλὰ τῶν καιριωτάτων περικόπτουσι, ὥς PuoLY οὗ αὐτοῖς ἀντιπίπτοντες. The 
Scholia Codd. 15 and 37, on the Epistle of James, are relevant here, and like- 
wise a similar one in Matthwi, which say in respect to the title: ἐστέον μὲν, 
ὥς τινες νοϑεύουσι THY ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, x. τ. 1 


11 


ie 
82 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, 
could not: and hence it must have been the case Ἄν, Apocalypse 
had been previously ranked among the Homologoumena, and its posi- 
tion had been menaced by recent attacks; so that its supporters insist- 
ed upon this general acknowledgement, while its assailants disregarded 
it. Thus the matter really stood. Till the time of Nepos of Arsinoe, 
about the middle of the 3d century, it was universally revered as one 
ofthe Apostle’s writings. In the IId. part, we have carefully and fully 
discussed the history of this book. The opponents of the Millennium, 
which Nepos defended from the Apocalypse, sought to rob him of this 
book, hoping in this way to disarm him, and ascribed its authorship to 
the heretic Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria, who brought the con- 
troversy under his own cognisance, disapproved the bold position of the 
Jatter, but disarmed the Nepotians by an intermediate opinion. This 
was, that the Apocalypse was written by John; not however the 
Apostle, but the Presbyter, whose grave was shown at Ephesus, near 
that of the Apostle. This supposition, set forth with several arguments, 
found currency among the Asiatics. It is elsewhere particularly men- 
tioned by Eusebius. After speaking of the graves of the two Johns at 
Ephesus, he adds, “‘it is of consequence to pay attention to this; for if 
the first John be not acknowledged as author of the Apocalypse which 
goes under his name, we must attribute it to the second.” (H. E. III. 
39.) Then its place would certainly be among the 00a, or writings 
of good men, erroneously numbered among the Apostolical productions. 

He introduces also into the third class, the Gospel of the Hebrews. 
Among these, says he, ‘‘ some have numbered the Gospel of the He- 
brews, which is in special favor with those who have seceded from Ju- 
daism.” ‘The converts from Judaism were more especially pleased with 
it, and are distinguished from the some who are mentioned. The latter 
were not then Jewish Christians, but other members of the churches of 
Asia. 

Yet the passage contains a difficulty, which directly involves the main 
question. Eusebius does indeed speak of the Gospel of the Hebrews 
in the third class, the 09a; but immediately preceding are these 
words respecting the Apocalypse: ‘‘Some reject it, others place it 
among the acknowledged.” Now when he proceeds: “ Among these 
some reckon the Gospel to the Hebrews also,” we may understand by 
these, either the acknowledged writings, ὁμολογούμενα, or those of the 
third class, voGa. The difference between the two positions is materi- 
al, and we cannot at first blush perceive any reason for a decision in 
favor of either. 

Yet it would seem, that when the object is to make divisions into 
elasses, the title of the class must be intended for the things ranged un- 
der it, and not a minor clause, which has accidentally got into the con- 
nexion. Besides, the words καὶ πρὸς τούτοις, Ere τε, ἠδὴ δ᾽ ἐν τού-- 
τοις, all refer back to the title of the class ἐν τοῖς νόϑοις. And fur- 
ther, it is to be remembered, that the τονές, (some,) could not in this case 
set up their opinion asa general acknowledgment, any more than in the 
case of the Apocalypse ; and this acknowledgment was absolutely re- 
quisite to give it a place in the first class. And if the general opinion 
had been in favor of it, and the some could appeal with reason to its 
general reception in answer to the opposing party, Eusebius would have 


- 
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON. 83 


proceeded as he did with the Apocalypse, and have inserted this Gospel 
under both classes. 

Had the historian concluded his account of the Canon here, we should 
find no difficulty in his general division. But now, after having clearly 
distinguished the avreA ἐλεγόμενα and νύϑα from each other, he concludes 
thus: All these belong to the disputed writings, ταῦτα μὲν πᾶντα τῶν 
ἀντιλεγομένων ἂν εἴη. Thus he annihilates the proposed division, and 
falls into another which confounds its two last members. 

Further on we first meet with a clear exhibition of this division. In 
concluding his account of the age of the Apostles and their history, he 
mentions their writings once more in these words: ‘‘ So much has come 
to our knowledge respecting themselves and the sacred Scriptures 
which they left behind them, and also respecting the disputed writings, 
ἀντιλεγομένων, from which we have distinguished the wholly spurious, 
παντελῶς voda, which deviate from the Apostolic doctrines.” (III. 31.) 
Here the νόϑα are those which deviate from pure doctrine ; while, on 
the contrary, in the former division, such writings τῆς ἀληθοῦς ορϑο- 
δοξίας ἀπαγουσαι, were not so much as deemed worthy of the third 
class, did not deserve even to be called 60a; οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς νόϑοις av- 
τὰ κατατακχτέον. 

When the heretical books, constituting ἃ species of Christian litera- 
ture which in profane criticism had no name or class, were notwith- 
standing introduced into one of these classes, the consequence of this 
erroneous proceeding was, that the genuine works of Christian writers 
were thrust forward into a better class, the Antilegomena; and thus 
two classes were thrown into one. This mode of division the historian 
wished to notice, and very injudiciously patched it on as the conclusion 
of his main passage respecting the Canon. 

By a gross blunder, a third division is obscurely presented in III. 
25; or rather, it was at first regarded as the principal division and 
then lost sight of. It is the division into ἐνδιαϑήκους and οὐκ ἐν- 
διαϑήκους, books belonging to the Testament, and books not belong- 
ing to it. He commences with the promise to notice the writings of 
the New Testament, τῆς καινῆς διαϑήκης ; but he soon wanders from 
his aim, and adds the ἀντιλεγόμενα and voda. Afterwards he recol- 
lects his first proposal, and excuses himself by saying, that he felt it 
necessary to enumerate the latter, though they did not belong to the 
New Testament. Had Eusebius used the requisite precision, he would 
first have distinguished the ἐνδιαϑήκους and the οὐκ ἐνδιαϑήκους; and 
then have subdivided the latter into ἀντελεγόμενας and vd Gas γραφάς. 
He would then have observed that there was also a division, according 
to which the heretical writings composed the third class, and the wri- 
tings of orthodox fathers were elevated to a place among the doubtful 
Apostolical productions. For, plainly, he has referred to three wholly 
distinct divisions, which he found already made, and which he hascon- 
founded instead of explaining. 

Hence, so long as we proceed in the explanation of this remarkable 
passage, upon the supposition that our aim must be to make these three 
classifications harmonize, or to throw light upon one from the other, we 
may employ ourselves forever without success. 


3 
84 WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, ETC. 
* 
§ 21. 


Such, nearly, was the state of things previously to the great Nicene 
Council ; for it was befure this that Eusebius wrote his church-history. 
Not long after this convention of the cH ministry, the public 
opinion was turned in favor of the books which the historian numbered 
among the ἀντελεγόμενα ; so much so, indeed, that the catalogues of 
Africa, Asia, and the western churches, overlooking this distinction as 
not existing, place them upon a level with the acknowledged Scriptures, 
and present different classifications. In respect to the Apocalypse a- 
lone, the favorite opinion of the Asiatics was yet too recent for them to 
desire or to be able to give it up immediately. ι 
. Cyril of Jerusalem enjoins it upon his disciples to read only the ὁμο- 
λογούμενα, leaving wholly untouched the augefaddoueva and anoxgu- 
φα.} In naming what parts of the New Testament should be read, he 
enumerates the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Epistles of 
Paul, and seven Catholic Epistles ; concluding with the repeated injunc- 
tion : “only these should be read.”* He does indeed still make use 
of the old terms of classification, but he admits under the ὁμολογουμδ- 
va, which alone were to be read, the ἀντιλεγόμενα of Eusebius, and 
omits the Apocalypse, according to the custom of many Asiatics of that 
period. Gregory Nazianzen expresses himself nearly in the same way 
in his Iambies ; as also the celebrated and much disputed Laodicean 

-Canon.* Amphilochius alone recurs again to the old representation.® 

Athanasius divides the books which, with various grounds of preten- 
sions, aspired to canonical authority, into three classes ; into xavovego- 
μένα, really canonical writings, among which he reckons the Four Gos- 
pels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Pauline and seven Catholic Epis- 
tles, and the Apocalypse ; ἀναγινωσκόμενα, which are by consent read 
in the church, e. g. the Instructions of the Apostles and the Shepherd ; 
and lastly, ἀπόκρυφα, under which term were comprehended all those 
writings which were forged under authoritative names or were otherwise 
of spurious origin. 

The Latins proceeded nearly in the same manner, according to the 
statement of Rufinus. They made three classes. The first compre- 
hended the Libros Canonicos ; the second those which were read with 
them, as the Shepherd and the Judicium Petri, which were called Ec- 
clesiastici. The rest they too called Apocryphos." 

Whence now thischange? The testimony of the fathers of preced- 
ing centuries on this subject always continued the same: as far as de- 
pended on these, there could be no change. The solution can be given 

only by the events of the period. ‘True, the great Synod passed no or- 


1 Cyril. Cateches. IV. §33. Bret 
2 Cyril. l.c. §36. ere 
3 Gregory Nazianz. Opp. T. II. p. 98. 


4 Spittler’s “Kritische Untersuchung des 60sten Laodicenischen Kanons.”’ 
Bremen. 1777. 


5 Inter Opp. Greg. Nazianz. T. 11. p. 190. 
6 Fragment. Epistolae Festal. 
7 Ruffin. Exposit. in Symbol. Apost. c. 37. 38. 


HISTORY OF THE TEXT. FIRST PERIOD. 85 


dinance or decree, to which this remarkable change can be ascribed ; 
but the first convocation of teachers from all parts of the world, and 
s which immediately followed it, afforded easy con- 
sages and ancient traditional regulations in re- 
}criptures, as these usages and regulations had been 
preserved in the most distant parts of the Christian world. From mu- 
tual communication and comparison of usages, new and formerly un- 
known grounds of decision respecting the Canon might be obtained. 
In this way, notwithstanding the deficiency of testimony in the writings 
of the ancient fathers, and the doubt thence arising in regard to some 
of the Catholic Epistles, a satisfactory assurance might be obtained, by ,_.. ὃ, 
means of the evidence of traditional opinion and church-usage. The 
change which rapidly succeeded, its universality and uniformity in A- 
sia, Africa and Europe, the period at which it happened, all point to this 
cause as the only one to which it can be attributed. 

What degree of weight is to be accorded to the evidence of ancient 
usage and traditional public opinion, can be better determined by law- 
yers than theologians, for the latter ascribe different degrees of impor- 
tance to them according to their respective creeds. 


CHAPTER IV. i 


HISTORY OF THE TEXT. FIRST PERIOD. 
§ 22. 


The fate which has befallen other works of antiquity, befel the NewA of7 
Testament likewise ; the carelessness of the librdrii*caused errors in ~ Dl ¢ 
the transcripts, which gradually spread into a great number of copies. 
But this is not all; the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of 
suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane liter- 
ature. It is inconceivable, when we reflect upon the reverence with 
which these writings were received, and the reputation of sanctity 
which they possessed, that such a thing could have happened; and yet 
it did, and the heretics, to whom it would perhaps be attributed, had no 
share in it. 

There are indeed but few of them, to whom the orthodox fathers im- 
pute so malicious an act. And to these was opposed an uncommon Vi- 
gilance in keeping their copies from the hands of the orthodox, and a 
general and powerful prejudice against them, over which such attempts, 
if made, could meet with little success. When a single trace of their 
criminality had been discovered, they were no longer allowed that jus- 
tice which was their due; they were not trusted even when they were 
innocent. Marcion was often charged with wilful alterations of passa- 
ges, which were read exactly so by some of the fathers, and are found 
thus in contemporary teachers of the dominant party. 


86 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. ᾿ 


Nevertheless, we meet with such phenomena in the New Testament 
at a very early period as contravene all our expectations. If we adopt, 
as our terminus comparationis, the unanimous text of several hundred 
manuscripts, which have reached our time, or that of the versions of the 
fourth century and of the writers who then and | afterwards cite the New 
Testament, and compare with it the citations of the oldest fathers till 
the middle of the third century, we cannot deny that strange things had 
happened in individual MSS. even at this early period. 

To give some proof of this beforehand, we will select a few cita- 
tions from the writings of a father, who adorned this early period with 
hislearning. I mean Clement of Alexandria, who complains within his 

ws days, of men who had made alterations in the Gospels, τῶν μετατεϑέν- 
τῶν τὸ εὐαγγέλια. He supports his charge by the following example, 
which probably occurred in some MSS. after Matt. 5: 9; at least he has 
cited it in this connexion : μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένου ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιο- 
σύνης, ὅτε αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι καὶ μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένου ἕνεκα ἐ- 
μοῦ ὅτι ἕξουσι τόπον, ὅπου οὐ διωχϑήσονεαι." 

Yet the MS. which he followed had several, if not so gross, yet im- 
portant deviations. Among others he appeals to the following words of 
our Saviour: αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεϑήσεται, 
καὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια ὑμῖν προστεϑησεται. To 
leave no doubt in what connexion he read this, he refers to the same 
words in Sees place, where they occur in connexion with Matt. 
6: 32, 33.7 

In the passage, Matt. 10: 42, Clement read ποτήριον ψυχροῦ ὕδατος, 
and immediately after, instead ‘of the words: ἀπωλέσῃ τὸν μισϑὸν av- 
τυῦ,--- απολῆται ὁ μισϑὸς αὐτοῦ. There is but a single one in all our 
stock of MSS. which contains this reading. 

A similar case occurs in Matt. 23: 27, οἵτινες ἔξωϑεν μὲν φαίνονται 
ὡραῖοι, which Clement gives thus : ἔξωϑεν δ τάφος φαένεται αἷραῖος 
ἔσωϑεν δὲ γέμει.“ And Matt. 25: Al, εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, τὸ ἥτοι- 

." \ Maouevor, which is quoted i in Clement, and also in Justin Martyr thus : 
εἰς TO πῦρ αἰώνιον ὁ ἡτοίμασεν ὃ πατήρ mov.> Of all the ancient 
MSS. there is only the one before mentioned, which coincides with 
these peculiarities. 

Several such variations as these are observable in this writer; nor is 
he the only one who deviates from the text in this way. _ He has respec- 
table and illustrious predecessors in this matter, such as Irenaeus, Justin 
Martyr, (as we have just seen in one instance,) and others, to whom 
the same observation is applicable, as we might soon be convinced by 
proofs. 

We cease to be surprised at these facts, when we find Origen, at the 
close of this period, expressing himself as follows respecting the condi- 
tion of the Gospels. “ It might appear wrong” (he is speaking of Matt. 


1 Lib. IV. Strom. c. 6. near the end. 
2 Lib. I. Strom. c. 24. Origenes, De Orat. c. 2. 
3 Quis dives salvetur, c. 31. 
τ ΕΠ Lib. III. Edit. Sylburg οἱ Heins. p. 241. Edit. Venet. Tom. I. 
p- 5 
5 Cohortat. ad Gent. c. 9. Justin. Dialog. eum Tryphon. e. 76. 


FIRST PERIOD. 87 


19: 19 : ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον,) “to assert that these words are inter- 

polated here, were it not that there is such a difference in many other 

places between the copies of the Gospels, that neither those of Matthew 

nor those of the other Evangelists agree together. The difference in ὦ f 
MSS. has now,” he proceeds, “ become really great, both from the care- ft 
lessness of copyists, and also from the arbitrary conduct of those to | 7 
whom is entrusted the correction of the copies ; and further from emen- ae di 
dations, additions and omissions, made by many according to their own 

judgment. In the copies of the Old Testament, indeed, we have, by 

the help of God, remedied this confusion, . . . . . and have marked 

with an obelisk in the Septuagint what was wanting in the Hebrew, as 

we did not venture toreject it wholly ; other passages we have added 

with an asterisk.”! ὦν 

The ancients called the text of the Septuagint of the first period, the 
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις or vulgaris editio,? in which the private judgment and 
good pleasure of every reader and copyist assumed such unlimited scope, 
that finally stern necessity occasioned a revision of the text in various 
countries. . 

The expression is borrowed from the Alexandrian critics, by whom ἡ wee > 

particularly the expressions z0107j éxdo0cg, κοινὴ ἀνάγνωσις, often only (pr . 
κποένη, and also δημοτέκὴ ἔκδουσες, were used respecting the old unre- 
vised text of Homer, in contradistinction from the amended editions, 
61009 σεις, of Aristarchus, Zenodotus, and others.2 When the Version 
of the LXX had reached a state like that of the old Homeric text, the 
same critical denomination was applied to it likewise, in reference to 
Origen’s revision. Jerome made use of this term to designate the 
earlier corrupt text of the Latin versions of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, and renders xoev7 by communis, and δημοτικὴ ἔκδοσις by vul- 
gata editio.® 

After shewing that the New Testament Scriptures were in a condi- 
tion similar to the ancient state of Homer’s works, or the Version of the ee 
LXX, we shall be justified in denominating this its condition until ag 
the revision which took place in the third century, the period of the 7.1 dau 
κοινὴ ἔχδοσις. 


1 Kad εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγρα-- 
gov, ὥστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ ατϑαῖον μὴ συνάδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ 
εὐαγγέλια... .. νῦν δὲ δηλονότι ἡ τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν διαφορὰ, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳϑυμίας 
τινών γραφέων, site ἀπὸ τόλμης τινών μοχϑηρὰς τῆς διορϑώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, 
εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορϑιώσεε προστιϑέντων, ἢ ἀφαιρούν-- 
των. Thjv μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγραφοῖς τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑήκης διαφωνίαν ϑεοῖ δὲ-- 
δόντος εἴρομεν ἰασάσϑαι. ..... In Matt. Tom. XV. Vol. ΠῚ. Kd. Ruei. p. 671. 
or Ed. Huetii Colon. p. 381. 

2 Hieronym. Ep. CVI. n. 6. Ad Suniam et Fretellam. ‘Sed hoc interest in- 
ter utramque, quod κοι pro locis et temporibus, et pro voluntate scriptorum 
vetus corrupta editio est.” 

3 Schol. in Il. B. 53. Ed. Wassenberg. Franeck. 1783. Schol. Ambrosian. in 
ἥν K. 74. Ed. Maii. Schol. Marcian. Villoison in Il. B. 169. P. 914. X. 468. 

. 344, 

4 Hieron. ad Sun. et Fret. ὃ 2. “‘ Quam Origines et Caesariensis Eusebius, 
omnesque Graeciae tractatores, xocv7jv, id est communem appellant atque vul- 
gatam.” 

5 Hieron. L. cit. et Comment. in Matt. 13: 35. In Ep. ad Galat. 5: 24. 


88 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


§ 23. 


Now if we find among our literary stores any ancient MS. which de- 
viates remarkably from the text of later times, and presents those read- 
ings which we have just extracted from Clement—which contains not 
only these and many others occurring in the writings of this father, but 
the variations and peculiarities of the oldest fathers generally, down to 
the third century, or at least a considerable part of them—may we not > 
say, that it expresses the text of the period preceding any critical labors 
upon it, or in other words the χοινὴ ἔκδοσις 1 

Such an one we possess in the celebrated Cambridge MS. which 


contains the remarkable readings previously quoted from Clement. 
wndy 


a4 


ae} 


This too, almost alone, presents us in its text the various readings in all 
the most ancient fathers. In criticism it is called D, under which de- 
signation it appears in this work. 

We will first establish the fact as to its text more fully, and then offer 
some remarks upon it. The former examples were taken from Mat- 
thew ; the following are from the Gospel of Luke. 

In the account of the baptism of Jesus, after the words: “‘ This is 
my beloved Son in whom 1 am well pleased,” (Luke 3: 22,) Clement 
adds: ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγένηκα oe. . . . Justin Martyr also! has this ad- 
dition. The only manuscript which contains it is D. Luke 2: 49, οὐκ 


ἥἤδειτε, Irenaeus has cited in the Greek text,2 which is extant in this 


passage, οὐχ οἴδατε ; D likewise reads thus. According to Epiphanius, 
Marcion had in his copy in Luke 5: 14, ἵνα εἰς μαρτύριον ἡ ὑμῖν τοῦτο. 
The father regarded this variation as having originated with the here- 
tic; yet D reads precisely thus, and we may be the more certain that it 
is a genuine ancient reading, as Marcion’s most zealous adversary had 
it in his own copy : “ Itaque adjecit (Christus), ut sit vobis in testimoni- 
um sine dubio, quod testabatur, se legem non dissolvere, sed implere,” 
etc.? There is as little ground for supposing that Marcion changed the 
words, (Luke 8: 42.) ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν into ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὑπάγειν ; for 
D and two other ancient MSS. read thus, and, besides, the Latin trans- 
lators of this time found the same reading in the copies which they 
used. (Cod. Veronens. Cod. Vercell. in Blanch. Evangel. Quadr.) 
According to Epiphanius, he had likewise in Luke 8: 45, instead of τίς 
0 ἁψαμενὸς μου, the equivalent words τίς μὲ ἥψατο, exactly like D and 
Origen. In Luke 9: 22, there stood in Marcion’s copy, according to 
Epiphanius, instead of τῇ τρίτῃ τμέρᾳ,---μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Tertul- 
lian read μετὰ τὴν τρίτην ἡμέραν, between the other two readings.! 
In Luke 24: 37, likewise, where Marcion read φάντασμα ϑεωρεῖν, in- 
stead of the difficult πνεῦμα ϑεωρεῖν, agreeing with the Codex D, there 
is no appearance of corruption. If the reading had been designed to 
favor the doctrine of the Phantasiasts, he must have altered or suppress- 


1 Clem. Paedagog. ἴω. I. p. 92. Heinsii et Sylburg. p. 113. Venet. Justin. Dial. 
cum Tryph. c. 88. 


2 L. I. Advers. Haeres. c. 20. ἢ, 2. 
3 Tertullian, Lib. 1V. Adv. Marcion. 
4 Ady. Marcion. L. IV. c. 21. 


FIRST PERIOD. 89 


ed the verses following, which he has not done.!_ But we cannot spend 
any more time upon the Marcionite readings, although they exhibit the 
characteristics of the text of this period. Very many of them occur in 
D, and no suspicion of intentional corruption can be defended. 

"In Luke 9: 60, Irenaeus has in the Greek :? ov δὲ πορευϑεὶς διάγ-- 
γελλε, with which D alone agrees ; and v. 61, they again read alike : éni- 
τρέψον δέ μοι πρῶτον. Inv. “62, Clement has the following peculiar read- 
ing: εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω βλέπων καὶ ἐπιβάλων τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ én’ ἄροτ- 
θον, * which occurs in no MS. but D. Justin Martyr adds, after the words: 
0 ἀϑετών ὑμᾶς, ἐμὲ ἀϑετεῖ, (Luke 10: 16) the words: ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκού- 
wv, ἀκούει τοῦ ἀποστείλαντος μὲ, as in Hippolytus and in D.° Luke 
12: 11 Clement has quoted thus: ὅταν δὲ φέρουσιν εἰς τάς, and μὴ 
προμεριμνᾶτε; the ἢ) τί, however, before ἀπολογήσησϑε, he has omit- 
ted®’—exactly asin ἢ. The passage, Luke 12: 27: mag. αὐξανει" οὐ 
κοπιᾷ, οὐδὲ νήϑεε, he gives thus: πῶς οὔτε νήϑει, οὔτε ὑφαίνειῖ.----Θχ- 
actly as it occurs in D alone. | This MS. in Luke 12: 48, instead of: 
περισσότερον αἰτήσουσεν αὐτὸν, has the words: πλέον ἀπαιτήσουσιν 
αὐτόν. From ἃ free citation by Justin, we perceive that his text con- 
tained this variation; for he uses πη μὶ ἀπαιτεϑήσεται, in which Cle- 
ment coincides with him. 8 Instead of: ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ καὶ τῇ τρίτη φυ- 
λακῆ, (Luke 12: 38.) the Latin translator ‘of Irenaeus reads: ‘“ Et si 
venerit in vespertina vigilia :””? we find the Greek exactly so in Marcion 
and 1 in Ὁ: τῇ ἑσπερενῇ φυλακῇ. In Justin there occurs instead of οἱ 
ἐργάται τῆς αδικίας (Luke 13: 27.), ἐργάται ἀνομίας : so also in the 
second epistle of Clement of Rome, (if indeed it be his 9}0 and in the 
Codex D. Clementof Alexandria omits ὑπό τίνος after χληϑῆς, (Luke 
14: 8. .) and v. 10, for πορευϑεὶς αἀναπέσαι εἰς ἔσχατον τόπον, he reads : 
εἰς τόν ἔσχατον τύπον ἀνάπιπτε. Soon after (v. 16.) he says δεῖπνον 
μέγαν." All this we find exactly soin D. In Luke 19: 5, σήμερον 
γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ is, expressed by Irenaeus, in the Greek fragments of his 
writings, 2 thus: ὅτι σήμερον. ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, which appears in no MS. 
but D. Clement says. for rw ἔχοντι δοϑήσεται, (Luke 19: 26.) τῷ ἔχ- | 
ovte προστιϑήσεται,13 and D, προστίϑεται. They alone exchange 
δίδωμε here for προστίϑημι. In Luke 29: 46. MS. Ὁ and Justin Mar=*> 
tyr'* resemble each other in the words παρατίϑημι and nagatidenat.- γε, 


1 Tertull. L. IV. es Mare. c. 42. 43. De carne Christi, c. 5. ἀπῇ 
2 L. I. Adv. Haer. c. 8. n. 3. 
3 Iren. loc. cit. 


4 L. VII. Strom. c. 16. 


5 Justin. Apol. Major. c. 16. Hippolyt. de Charismat. c. 26. The Latin ver- 
sion of Irenaeus : Praef. ad Lib. III. Adv. Haeres. 


6 Strom. L. IV. c. 9. 

7 Paedagog. L. II. Sylb. 198. Venet. 231. 

8 Justin. Apol. Maj. c. 17. Clem. Strom. L. II. c. ult. 

9 L. V. Adv. Haeres. c. 34, n. 2. 

10 Justin. Apol. Maj. c. 16. Clem. Rom. Ep. 11. ο. 4. 

11 Paedagog. L, II. p. 141. Sylburg. and 165. Ed. Venet. 
15. 1..1. οὐ Vill nis. 

13 Strom. L. VII. ο. 10. 

14 Dial. cum Tryph. ο. 105. 


12 


90 _ HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


If we should bring into comparison here likewise the»writings of Ori- 
gen which he composed before any amended text existed, we shou 


e 


obtain a very great addition to the evidence for the position, that t 
Cambridge MS. preserves in its peculiarities the readings of the fathers 
of the Church before the middle of the third century. 


” 


It is therefore a copy of the zoey ἔχδοσες ; and its condition agrees 


with that picture which Origen has drawn of the text of this period, so 


that our position wants nothing as respects philological evidence. 

The text was circulated in this state, until finally the necessity of a 
general emendation was perceived, and called forth in many places men 
who devoted themselves to this meritorious occupation. From this time 
the vulearis editio gradually disappeared from the churches, from the 
desks of the readers, and from the hands of private persons ; and pos- 
terity would have almost wholly lost it, had it not been preserved by 
the obstinacy of certain countries, in which laborious search has been 
made for it in later times. But we must not now proceed further in 
these investigations. We will first make use of the means we have of 
explaining in what way the orthodox, with perfectly honest intentions, 
and with all the reverence which they had for the sacred books, could 
have been the authors of such disorder in them. 


§ 24. 


The citations of the fathers would have left us very much in the dark 
respecting the history of the text during this period, had there not been 
preserved a MS. in which the alterations and accidents which it met 
with are laid before us, so as to be easily inspected. All we have to do, in 
order to delineate the rise’ of these alterations, is to make use of our 
eyes and then put together our observations. Errors of the copyist in 
writing must not be taken into account; for who could write their his- 
tory ? There are innumerable species of them, and there is no point of 
union from which we can consider them all at once. 

. . It was an object of the readers of the Bible to make it as intelli- 


ἌΡΑΣ 
κε alia gible to themselves as possible. With this view, they often wrote, in- 


1. -+ 


Ge ~ Stead of an unintelligible expression, one more plain above the line or 


in the margin of their MS; for every body knows that this last is the 
place which readers have always appropriated to themselves for their 
own remarks. Such an obscure expression was, for example, to a 
Greek, the word κῆνσος, Mark, 12: 14; the genuine Greek word, éme- 
κεφαλαῖον, capitation-tax, was therefore placed by its side. This was 
afterwards introduced into the text by a transcriber, and so got into MS. 
D. Some one imagined Luke 12: 36, seq. to have reference to the 
day-time. Now the τρίτη φυλακή, according to the Greek reckoning, 
was the μεσονύχτιον; and in order to remedy the misapprehension 
which might arise, he explained the expression in accordance with the 
Roman custom, which divided the day zn quatuor excubias, adding in 
the margin, éonegevn φυλακῇ, which afterwards crept into several 
MSS. He must have been a person of some learning, who explained 
the words τρίακοντα ἀργύρια in Matt. 26: 15, (which to Jews alone are 
precise and intelligible,) by zg/axovra στατῆρας. Thislove of expla- 
nation shows itself in the valuable MS. D, not merely in single words, 


FIRST PERIOD. 91 


om 
-- 


᾿ δι t even in whole clauses. E. g. Mark 10: 12, ἐὰν γινὴ ἀπολύσῃ τὸν 
αὐτῆς is so expressed as to be inconsistent with the customs of 
‘reeks, according to which ἀπολύειν and ἀποπέμπειν were used 
the man, while ἀπολεέπειν, discedere, merely, was allowed to 
the woman, she being permitted to give the ἀπολείινεως γράμμα. 
Hence the vulgaris editio altered this clause according to the Greek 
customs: γυνὴ ἐὰν ἐξέλϑῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἂν δρὸς χαὶ γαμησή. The phrase- 
sa ology, ζητοῦντες ϑερεῦσαί te ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, ἵνα “ATNYOO. .-. 
Luke 11: 54, was too foreign to be generally understood ; some person 
therefore substituted one more plain: ζητοῦντες ἀφουμήν teva λαβεῖν 
αὐτοῦ, ἵνα εὕρωσι κατὴ Lie cn αὐτοῦ. Such explanations, however, 
’ sometimes succeeded but ill; 6. g. Luke 13: 11, where the oriental ex- 
pression : πνεῦμα ἔχουσα, pare am was forced to make way for the 
infelicitous explanation : ἐν ἀσϑένειᾳ ἣν τοῦ πνὲ ὕματος. The altera- 
tions which arose in the text, from the aim to render it more intelligi- 
ble, are seen in great numbers in our MS. of the vulgaris cditio, and 
are found in cases which could present no difficulty to a reader ‘who 
could make even moderate pretensions to understanding. 

II. The many Hebraisms which constitute one peculiarity of the 
New Testament could not count upon the approbation of Greek gram- 
‘ marians. Such difficult applications of words and foreign arrangement 

of the parts of speech, could not but occasion criticism among a people 
who were very much inclined to it, and laid great stress on purity of 
diction. Hence Luke 20: 11,7 ροσέϑετο πέμψαι, MWS HOM, was al- 
tered to ἔπεμψεν, and Mark 2: 15, ἐν τῷ καταχεῖσθαι αὐτόν, into κατα- 
κειμένων αὐτῶν ; and John 1: 33, éve Boum. τῷ πνεύμ. καὶ ἐτάραξεν 
ἑαυτόν, into ἐταράχϑη τῷ πνεύματι ὡς ἐμβριμώμενος. Thus, too, the 
rough Jewish construction ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐπλήρωσε πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ 
εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσηλϑεν εἰς Ααπερναούμ, (Luke ve 1.) (Was 
exchanged for the easy Greek sentence : ὅτε ἐτέλησεν πάντα τὰ ῥήμα- 
τα λαλῶν, ἦλϑεν εἰς ἀαφερ. 

Numerous as are the cases οἵ this kind in the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, it is nev- 
ertheless true that it contains many Hebraisms which were afterwards 
extirpated by those who in the third century, with similar views and 
critical penetration, accomplished recensions of the text. I will pre- 
sent some proofs of this important remark. ‘The later text reads, Mark 
14: 25, οὐχέτι ov μὴ πίω, where D still has 190000) miswv—Luke 12: 
10, D reads : ἀφεϑήσεται αὐτῷ, εἰς δὲ TO πνξυμα ἅγιον οὐκ ἀφὲ εἐϑήσε- 
tat, while the later text has: ᾿ἀφεϑήσεται αὐτῷ" 10 δὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον 
πνεῦμα βλασφημήσαντι. οὐχ ἀφεϑήσεται. And John 9: 11, ἀπήλϑον 
οὖν καὶ ἐνυψάμην, καὶ ἤλϑον βλέπων, while the later text reads: ἀς- 
πελϑὼν καὶ νιψάμενος ἀνέβλεψα. 

III. Others labored in a different way to make the text plainer, or 
to give it greater circumstantiality, writing the language of one Evan- 
gelist respecting an occurrence in the margin of another. The inten- 
tion was to illustrate the text in this way, but by degrees the notes final- 
ly got into the text itself. This is too well known to require examples 
for proof; but I will give a single one on account of its peculiar absurd- 
ity. In Mark 13: 2, where our Lord speaks of the coming desolation, 
and says that one stone shall not be left upon another, the “κοινὴ éxdo- 
6tS proceeds : χαὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμέρων ἄλλος ἀναστήσεται ἄνευ χειρῶν. 


> 


92 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


The words thus joined to ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυϑ ἢν are evidently the sub- 
stance of John 2: 19. Ἶ 

Further, when the Old Testament was quoted in the New rather 
freely and not so as to give the complete import of the passage, readers 
were in the habit of adding the very language of the prophets, or that 
part of it which was wanting. E.g. Matt. 13.14, where to the cita- 
tion ἀκοῇ ἀχούσετε, Isaiah’s introduction to these words (6: 9), πορεύ- 
Pete, καὶ εἰπὲ τῷ λαῷ rourw, was subjoined. , 

IV. It is most probable too that the Harmonies occasioned consid- 
erable corruption of the text. The method in which Tatian brought 
together the four Gospels is but little known ; nor is it certain whether 
we really possess the plan of Ammonius through Victor Capuanus or 
not. The κοινὴ ἔκδοσις sometimes contains passages in which the text 
of several Evangelists is so jambled together, that we cannot but think 
it to be the artificial arrangement of some harmonist. By such com- 
bination, a narration frequently obtained a minuteness of detail, which 
induced some diligent reader to write it down for the sake of illustra- 
tion in the margin of his New Testament. When once there, the next 
transcriber of the copy did it the honor of introducing it into the text 
itself. Thus I account for the remarkable form which Luke 5: 19. 
has obtained inthe MS. D: καὶ ἀποστεγάσαντες τοὺς κεράμους, ὅπου 
ἦν, καϑῆκαν TOV κράββατον σὺν τῷ παραλυτικῷ. The ἀποστεγάσαν- 
τὲς is from Mark 2: 4. ἀποστέγασαν τὴν στέγην. But the harmonist 
joined with Mark’s verb, instead of στέγη, the χεράμους of Luke. 
From Mark he took further oxov ἦν and χραββατος, and the expres- 
sion καϑῆκαν was borrowed from Luke. In Luke are found the words: 
σὺν τῷ κλινεδίῳ᾽ but as there was a χράϑβατος already there, the na- 
ραλυτικός of Mark took the place of κλενίδεον, and thus arose σὺν τῷ 
παραλυτικῷ, and the whole becomes as we find it in this MS. The 
passage Matt. 27: 28: ἐνδύσαντες avror, ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν καὶ χλα- 
μύδα κοκκίνην περιέϑηκαν αὐτῷ has been treated in a similar manner. 
Mark (15: 17) has πορφύραν, Luke (23: 2), ἐσϑῆτα ; but John unites 
both in ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν. (19: 2.) _ Mark supplied ἐνδύουσεν, which, 
however, was moulded into the form of Matthew’s éxdvoavtes; and the 
latter furnished the χλαμυδὰ κοκκίνην. Now the supposed harmony of 
Ammonius gave this passage in the same way, according to Victor : 
‘* Bt exuentes eum, induunt tunicam purpuream; et chlamydem coccin- 
eam citcumdederunt ei.”! In thus inferring from the state of the text 
in particular places, that it originated out of the arrangement of some 
harmonist, we are supported by other facts. The Genealogy of Mat- 
thew, which in MS. D is altered according to that by Luke, betrays an 
attempt of the kind to unite the two. The famous interpolation of MS. 
D in Matt. 20: 28, which in respect to magnitude has not its equal, 
sprang, it would seem, from sucha source. Its substance seems to be 
in Luke 16: 8; but it is given with peculiar freedom and in an extend- 
ed form. That it stood in some connexion with other precepts of Jesus, 
which were brought together on account of their similarity, is evident 
from the first clause, which is not borrowed from Luke, but from some 


1 Ammonii Alexand. Sanctor. Quatuor Evangel. Harmonia. Interpr. Victore 
Episc. Capuano, c. CLXIX. Galland. Biblioth. Patr. Tom. II. 


' 


ον “" 


FIRST PERIOD. 93 


other sotitce: ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μικροῦ αὐξῆσαι καὶ ἐκ μείζονος ἔ- 
λαττοὸν εἶναι. From this introduction, it would seem to have been con- 

sted with those discourses of our Lord in which he speaks to his 
disciples respecting comparative greatness, as he did on several occa- 
sions. If this be the case, it is no longer doubtful that it was taken 
from some paraphrastic harmony. 

V. Sometimes an individual found a passage or story in the apocry- 
phal books which pleased him, and he wrote it in some suitable place 
on the blank space in his copy. It only needed some ignorant librarius 
to insert it in the next copy which was taken of the former. Thus was 
introduced the story in Luke 6: 5: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ϑεασάμενός τινὰ 
ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ, εἶπεν avt@’” AvOouwne, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί 
ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβατης εἰ 
τοῦ νόμου. Τὸ this, probably, a passage in Justin Martyr is to be as- 
cribed: ταῦτα γάρ réexrovize ἔργα εἰργάζετο, ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὦν, ἀρο-- 
τρία καὶ ζυγὰ, Ove τούτων καὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης σύμβολα διδάσκων, καὶ 
ἐνεργῆ βίον." It came into his text from the Evangelium infantiae 
Christi. Stroth, who attempted to derive it from the Gospel of the He- 
brews, did not consider that that book commenced with the baptism of 
our Lord, and thus did not contain the history of his youth. ἢ 

VI. The custom of reading these books in the public assemblies, 
frequently procured them an addition by a foreign hand. It was neces- 
sary to divide them into stated sections for reading ; these sections sep- 
arated particular narratives from their connexion, causing the church- 
lessons to begin too abruptly. In order to avoid this inconvenience, an 
introduction was framed, which the reader wrote in the church-copies 
for hisown use. In this way interpolations or smaller alterations of the 
text arose in great numbers, the occasion and origin of which may be 
easily discerned, if pains be only taken to examine whether the suspect- 
ed passage was the beginning of an Anagnosis. I will not accumulate 
examples on a point which has long since ceased to be doubtful. . At 
Luke 16: 19, an Anagnosis began with the words: ἄνϑρωπος δέ tug 
ἦν πλούσιος. ‘The commencement was too abrupt ; therefore the words : 
εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἕτεραν παραβολήν, as we find them yet in the text of D, 
were prefixed to the narrative. Compare Luke 12: 2, where an Anag- 
nosis began with : οὐδὲν δὲ συγκεκαλυμμένον, and observe how the xo0- 
νὴ ἔκδοσις has formed an introduction from the preceding verses: ἐν 
vig ἐπισυναχ. . . Another section commenced at John 14: 1, with uy 
ταρασσέσϑω.. .. to which the formula: καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὖ- 
τοῦ, was prefixed. Sometimes a conclusion was affixed to a lesson, 
when it seemed too abruptly broken off. One of these ends in D at 
Luke 6: 10, with the words : καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι κυρεὸς ἔστιν O υἱ- 
ὃς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου, which is taken entirely from an- 
other place. 

VII. Another species of alterations are omissions ; we speak here, 
however, only of those which bear the marks of intentional disfiguration. 
As it was frequently the case, that glosses and explanatory marginal 
annotations crept wrongfully into the text, the Diorthotae or correctors 


rere eee ee ee rns BEE BP RY © SSO UCOe Oe Oe SOUS Snr 5 nae EEE 


1 Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 88. 
2 Repert. fur bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur. I. Th. 


94 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


of the MSS. often indulged suspicions in regard to such expressions 
or sentences, judging of them perhaps according to their own critical 
notions. ‘They then exercised their supposed right in respect to them, 
and either struck them out, or affixed marks of rejection to them. In 
Matt. 13: 1, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐχείνη ἐξελϑὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, the expression ἀπὸ 
τῆς οὐκίας appeared superfluous and merely a gloss, and therefore was 
rejected from the “07 ἔχδοσις. No less useless i in Matt. 22: 24, was 
τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ following ἐπιγαμβρεύσει 0 ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ. "The 
word éneyau. includes this, and ἀνασι 70 σπέρμα sufficiently confirms 
it ; therefore τὴν γυν. αὔτ. was suppressed. In Mark 15: 24, τίς τί 
con is implied by the preceding βάλλοντες κλῆρον én’ αὐτὰ ; it was 
therefore omitted in the κοινὴ Eedoore: 

VIII. Another cause very similar to the last, often gave rise to re- 
jections. Synonymous expressions or phrases immediately following 
one another were imperfections in Greek construction with which no 
good writer would be chargeable without peculiar reasons. A reader 
or corrector who judged merely as a Greek, and knew not the pecu- 
liar structure and usages of the Hebrew language, would deem himself 
indisputably authorized by the grammatical laws of his nation, to strike 
out one of two synonymous phrases from the text asa scholion. So it 
happened in Mark 8: 15, where the first of the two equivalent words 
ὁρᾶτε, βλέπετε, _was struck out; and Mark 11: 28, where ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξου- 
σίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, and the words immediately following, καὶ rig σοὺ 
τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἔδωκεν, Mean nearly the same thing : hence sen- 
tence of rejection was passed upon the latter clause. In Luke 21: 15, 
δυνήσονται ἀντειπεῖν ἢ ἀντιστῆναι,---αντειπεῖν Was expressed by ἀν- 
τιστῆναι; and therefore was omitted. In John 10: 18, the words: αλλ᾽ 
éyw τίϑημι αὐτὴν ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ. appeared to be contained both in the 
preceding and fe eae clauses, and were therefore omitted as tautolo- 
gical. 

Such are the various facts which the MS. D presents to our observa- 
tion, on which we may found a sketch of the fate of the text during the 
period of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, and by which we may elucidate that part 
of its history which the torch of criticism has hitherto only feebly illu- 
mined. 


§ 25 


Yet our idea of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις would be very inaccurate, did we 
expect to find all the corruptions to which it was exposed exhibited to- 
gether in a single MS. Its lot must have been different in every prov- 
ince, in e decennium, and in every house. It was not the case that 
every thing which an industrious and acute or incompetent reader add- 
ed to his MS., and the alterations he made in particular passages, found 
their way into all the copies and were spread abroad to all places and 
persons. Such scholia and alterations frequently did not pass the thresh- 
old of their birth-place and perished with the MS.; while on the other 
hand, others were extended further by means of copies, and in other 
hands received fresh additions. What Jerome says of the condition of 
the Septuagint, is applicable here : “κοινή pro locis et temporibus et 
pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corruptaest.” Though we have drawn 


FIRST PERIOD. 95 


the various classes of corruptions from D, yet we must not expect to 
find in this MS. all the particular cases which may be arranged under 
them. Other copies had many, which we seek in vain in this. [τὸ- 
snaeus, for example, read in his copy for ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, in Matt. 10: 29, the 
words « εἰς τὴν παγίδα. He comments expressly upon it : ‘Si quis, quod 
dictum est... .enumerare voluerit captos ubique passeres ... et cau- 
sam requirere, ob quam heri tanti ,... hodie iterum tanti capti sint,” 
&c.! This reading occurs frequently in Origen also, and in other wri- 
ters ; but it is wanting in the MS. D. Justin has quoted Matt. 19: 17, 
as follows : εἷς ἔστεν ἀγαϑὸς 0 πατὴρ ὁ ἐν οὐνανοῖς :3 Irenaeus also read 
it in his copy: ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,3 &c. The passage Matt. ἢ: 
22, appears still more remarkable, as Justin read it: πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί μοι" 
κύριε, ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν, καὶ ἐπίομεν, καὶ δυνάμεις é ἐποιήσα- 
μεν. "Tt appears, also, in a similar form in Origen, in his second book 
against Celsus, c. 46, and in other places. Clement found the passage 
Matt. 10: 26, in his copy thus : οὐδὲν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερωϑήσεται, 
οὐδὲ κεκαλυμμένον, ὃ οὐχ ἀποκαλυφϑήσεται; ; as also Origen has quot- 
ed it, towards the close of his 16th Homily on Jeremiah. 80 different 
were the copies of this period, that the Codex D, prolific in corruptions 
as it is, gives us but a very imperfect idea of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις as it ex- 
isted even in any one region. 

On the margin of the Philoxenian version, there are occasionally 
found fragments of a manuscript which Thomas of Charkel saw in the 
monastery of St. Antonius at Alexandria, and from which he inserted 
particular readings upon the margin of this version ; but he did this in 
‘the Gospels too rarely to permit us to learn much in regard to them. 
That the MS. was remarkably rich in such variations, we perceive from 
the fact that he found in it the grossest and most striking which has yet 
been discovered, viz. Matt. 20: 28, ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μικροῦ αὐξῆσαι, 
δον, Besules this remarkable passage, in which his Alexandrian MS. 
agrees with D, he has communicated to us still others. He and D have 
in common the addition in Mark 4: 9, καὶ ὃ συνιὼν συνιἕτω ; ; they also 
resemble each other in the reading, Luke 12: 1, πολλὼν δὲ μυριάδων 
συναχϑεισῶν κύκλῳ, and πολλῶν δὲ ὄχλων συνπεριεχόντων κύκλῳ. 
The Philoxenian margin has too, in Luke 11: 53, where D inserts the 
words, ἐνώπεον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ after πρὸς αὐτούς, the same interpo- 
lation ; it has even received a fresh addition here. ‘They both also read 
in John 21: 18, ἄλλοι σε ζωσουσιν and Luke 6: 5, μόνοις τοῖς ἱερεύσιν, 
&c. &c. Besides such readings, Thomas also sometimes noted in his 
margin such as are wholly peculiar, which may be regarded as evi- 
dence of the condition of the xo«v7) ἔκδοσις in other MSS. After Matt. 
27: 16, λεγόμενον βαραββᾶν, his margin | proceeds : ὅστες dua: στάσιν 
τινὰ γενομένην ἕν τῇ πόλει καὶ φόνον Hv βεβλημένος φυλακήν. 
Luke 22: 23, αὐτῶν τὴν πονηρίαν, τὴν ὑποκρισὲν αὐτῶν. Luke 22:18, 


— ἊΨΒ $$ $$ $< — rr 


1 L. 2. Adv. Huer. c. 21. ἢ. 2. 

2 Dial. cum Tryph. c. 96. 

3 L. 1. Adv. Haer. c. 20. n. 2. 

4 Apol. Maj. c. 16. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 76. 
5 L. Strom. 275. Lyeb. 223. Venet. 


96 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


ἕως ὅπου καινὸν πίω αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ tov ϑεοῦ. John 3: 6, γεγεν- 
ψημένον éx τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ τοῦ mvevu.... John 18: 18, τοῦ ἐνεαυτοῦ 
ἐκείνου, ἀπέστειλεν οὖν αὐτὸν 0 Avvag δεδεμένον πρὸς Καΐαφαν, τὸν 
ἀρχιερέα. ; 

So impossible is it to obtain a knowledge of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις from a 
single MS., that our investigations in the important relic preserved in 
the library at Cambridge, rather inform us how much we have to wish 
for another like it, than satisfy our inquiries. Yet since fortune willed 
that but a single MS. of this kind should escape the ravages of capri- 
cious time, it is well that the lot fell to this in particular, which has on- 
ly become the more instructive to us from the many accidents to which 
it has been exposed. 

But where, in what country, was its text first formed? In Egypt, or 
more particularly in Alexandria? Such’is my opinion, and it seems to 
me as correct as any critical position is. The MS. does indeed contain 
readings of several fathers of the second and third cerituries, as we have 
clearly sh ; but generally, in the character of the whole text, in the 
constant similarity of minute readings, which, it is true, are not very 
striking, but are on that account of more weight when coincident, it 
approaches nearest to those copies which Clement of Alexandria made 
use of in his writings, and those which Origen followed in such of his 
as preceded his emendation of the text, by which he crowned his 
claims to the gratitude of the Christian school. We may adduce in 
confirmation of our position, the MS. from which Thomas of Char- 
kel, in the monastery of the Antonians at Alexandria, transferred read- 
ings to the margin of the Philoxenian version. For these reasons, I 
believe the text of this MS. was originally formed in Alexandria or at 
least in Egypt, before it entered upon its wanderings, and that it pre- 
sents us with the xocv7 ἔκδοσις of that country. 


§ 26. 


We are in possession of another document of the same age, which 
no longer indeed speaks to us in Greek, but yet affords us considerable 
information respecting the condition of the text. We mean the old 
Syriac version, the Peschito, whose origin belongs, according to the 
most moderate estimate, to the third century. 

In many points, in the peculiarities of trifling readings, it bears a strik- 
ing resemblance to the Cambridge MS. This has long been agreed 
among critics ; and on this account we may spare ourselves any further 
proof of the assertion. Yet nearly allied to this MS. as it is, and much 
as it has of its character, it does not lose on that account its own pecu- 
liar features, but pursues its course without restraint, often not agreeing 
with a single MS. 

This resemblance to D. frequently presents us anew with the same 
appearances which we have already considered; but there is also a 
multitude of novel and in general wholly peculiar readings. Yet I 
have observed hardly one which is not comprehended under some one 
of the species above enumerated. Plainer expressions are substituted for 
obscure ones, or indefinite passages assisted in their sense by a slight 
alteration or interpolation. Matt. 21:34, for example, is rendered plain- 

ees 


FIRST PERIOD. 97 


er by τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος αὐτοῦ after τούς καρπούς; and Luke 12:45, by 
τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ after παιδίσκας, So Luke 9: 34, where for ἐχείνους 
elo Dery, the clause, ὅτε ἔβλεψαν Maiiony ual’ HAlav ἀνελϑόντες εἰς 
τὴν veg. ...Wwasinserted. Passages were transferred from one Gospel 
into another, as in Matt. 28:18, after xa? ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς the words: καὶ 

KaDWS ἀπέσταλκέ UE ὁ πατήρ μου, καγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς, and in Luke 
9: 39, after zoager the words: καὶ τρίζει τοὺς ὀδόντας αὐτοῦ &e. &e. 
Some additions have also arisen from the Church-lessons, e. g. Luke 15: 
11, where in the Syriac church the lesson appointed for the fifth day of 
the first week in Lent commenced, was thus altered: εἶπε δὲ αὐτοῖς πα- 
λὲν ὁ ]ησοῦς, évgDundg τις... Some passages were omitted also on sus- 
picion that they were glosses or explanatory observations; e. g- Mark 
7: 2, κοιναῖς χερσὶ, τοῦτ. ἔστιν. In short, the cases which we find here 
are perfectly similar to those before enumerated, and nowhere is any 
other species of variation presented to our notice. 

On the contrary, the text of the xovv7 ἔχδοσις in Syria was not ex- 
posed to so many accidents, as that of the MS. D. No gnance to 
Hebrew phrases and idioms is perceptible in it; for they were not 
strange to the Syrian, being analogous to those of his own language. 
Hence in this respect the text was more fortunate. Nor is there any 
trace in it of the influence of the Apocryphal books, nor, what is rather 
singular, of the harmonies even, although that of Tatian was extensive- 
ly read in these countries and very long enjoyed favor and repute. 

This fact is to be explained by local circumstances which operated 
_ differently upon the text in the two countries. Literature of every 
kind was always rife in Alexandria; and probably this was the birth- 
place of many of the Apocryphal books. A multitude of Librarii, Di- 
orthote and Grammarians were always active to the advantage or dis- 
advantage of learning, and each diffused the vapours of his own eru- 
dition into the surrounding atmosphere ; and this perhaps contributed 
not a little to the production in that populous city of the cavilling, car- 
ping tone, for which it was so celebrated. It is true that Syrians at this 
period frequently travelled to this city to acquire information and learn- 
ing; but such persons were but individuals, while everything with 
which papyrus was concerned, was collected permanently in the coun- 
try which possessed the monopoly of that article. Where the business 
of Emendator or Scholiast, or pretension to it, was socommon, it could 
not well be otherwise than that the text should be exposed to much ill 
treatment which it would not meet with elsewhere. 

The MSS. of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις in Syria contained, notwithstand- 
ing, several important readings which we seek in vain in the Egyptian 
MSS. I shall here exhibit some of them which may be regarded as 
characteristic, and will enable us too, to recognise and trace to their 
origin such offshoots as in process of time arose from this text. One is 
in Matt. 6: 13, which is remarkable for being a variation of a different 
species from any of the preceding, having sprung from the public forms 
of prayer. It is the well known addition: oze σοῦ ἔστιν ἡ βασιλεία, 
καὶ ἡ δύναμις, καὶ ἡ δόξα, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Others are Matt. 20: 22, 
and 23, μέλλω πίνειν---καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίξομαι, βαπτισϑῆς- 
vou. Mark 6: 11, εἰς μαρτύρ. αὐτοῖς---αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀνεκτότερον 
ἔσται «Σοδόμοις, ἢ Τομόῤῥοις ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως, ἢ tH πόλει ἐκείνῃ. 

19 


98 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


Φ " > , δὺς as ν ε ‘ a ~ ‘ 
Mark 13: 14, τῆς ἐρεμώσεως---το ῥεϑὲν ὑπὸ Aavenh tov προφητου. 
Luke 4: 18, ἀπέσταλκέ με---ἰάσασϑαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρ- 
δίαν. 


§ 27. 


These are the two principal branches of the xovvy ἔκδοσις of which 
we still have any knowledge. Of these the Syriac did not overstep its 
original bounds; while, on the other hand, the African extended itself 
far into the western churches. Alexandria had Jong supplied the west 
with Greek copies of all works of learning; and the west obtained 
from the same source MSS. of the N. T.! 

When at the close of the second, or in the third century, Latin ver- 
sions of the N. ‘I’. were composed in Italy and on the northern coast of 
Africa, they were made from the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις. How could it be oth- 
erwise when there existed none of the recensions which originated at 
the close of the third century? ‘The agreement of these versions with 
D is undeniable and striking, and not another word is necessary to 
make it probable that they were derived from similar Greek copies. 

Simple and historically true as is this solution of their mutual agree- 
ment, and obvious as it is, yet some have been more inclined to turn 
their attention to a distance, and to suppose reasons which are neither 
well contrived nor natural. The Latins have been accused of altering 
the Greek text according to their versions. But did they then interpo- 
late the copies of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria according 
to their versions? Did they have emissaries in Syria to corrupt the. 
Greek text and the copies of the Peschito there? Did they corrupt too 
the Syriac MSS. of the Nestorians? And did they moreover alter Mar- 
cion’s Codex according to their views and their version? Was there 
any Latin version in the time of Irenzus ? or if there were, was the 
Greek text immediately altered according to it? did it become directly 
the idol of the Latins ? 

When did the Latins begin to think so highly of their version, and 
to set it up as the standard of the text? ‘Tertullian was not aware of 
any thing of this kind, when he said: “It is not in the Greek as it has now 
become current with the Latins through a cunning or a silly eversion,” 
(a play upon words; eversion for a wretched version.)? As little was 
Victorinus, when he said respecting Matt. 6: 11, “It is otherwise in the 
Greek ; but the Latins did not comprehend it, or were not able to ex- 
press it.”? Hilary of Poictiers* speaks unfavorably of it, and goes 

1 Suetonius in Domitiano c. 20. ‘ Quanquam bibliothecas incendio absump- 
tas impensissime reparare curdsset, exemplaribus undique petitis, missisque Alex- 
andriam qui describerent emendarentque.” 

2 Tertull. de Monogam, c. 11. 

3 Victorin, L. II. Contra Arian. c. 8. L. I.c. 49. 

4 Hilar. Tract. in Ps. 138, n. 43. “Latina translatio, dum virtutem dicti ig- 
norat, magnam intulit obscuritatem, non discernens ambigui sermonis propri- 
etatem, quod enim nobiseum scribitur. . . . cum Grecis hoc modo est. . . Comp. 
Tract. in Ps. 118, Litt. He. n.1,and De Trin. L. XI.n.17. ‘“Secundum latini- 
tatem obscurius hoe dictum videtur (Ephes. 1: 17), quia latinitas pronominibus 
non utitur, que grecitas usu honesto et necessariosemper usurpat. Ita enim 
scribitur: ὁ ϑεὸς τοῦ κυρίου, x. τ. A. 


FIRST PERIOD. 99 


back himself to the Greek phraseology; as also Ambrose sometimes 
appeals to the text in Greek ‘“‘unde transtulerunt Latini.’’* 

Augustine hasexpressed himself on this point, particularly in his books 
De Doctrina Christiana, as strongly and plainly as any more modern 
writer: “Et Latine quidem lingue homines, (says he, L. II. De 
Doctr. Christ, c. XI.) quosnuncinstruendos suscepimus, duabus aliis 
ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebrza scilicet et 
Greca, ut ad exemplaria precedentia recurratur, si quam dubitationem 
attulerit Latinorum interpretum varietas.” “‘ We frequently cannot 
comprehend the translators, he proceeds (L. Il. De Doctr. Chr. c. 14), 
unless we bring to our aid the language from which they translated ; 
how often do they miss the sense unless they are possessed of peculiar 
learning? We are, therefore, obliged to examine the original lan- 
guages ; linguarum illarum, ex quibus in Latinam Scriptura pervenit, 
petenda cognitio est.’’ Soon afterwards, in the same Book, 16th 
chapter, he says: “libros autem novi Testamenti, si quid in Latinis 
varietatibus titubat, Grecis cedere oportere dubium non est.” Now, if 
such were the principles of all the noted fathers of the Latin church, 
by what right can it be assumed that theso called Codices Latinizantes 
are alterations of the text according to the Latin versions. 

The opinion of Jerome on this subject is generally known ; and even 
the later fathers, Sedulius, Beda, and Atto of Vercelli, do not differ 
from their predecessors on this point. But, while these opinions pre- 
vailed, the great schism between the Greeks and Latins occurred, and 
separated the two churches from each other so far, that the latter, even 
if they had had the disposition, were no longer able to exert any influ- 
ence over either the rites, the creed, or the MSS. of the churches 
which belonged to the Greek patriarchate. 

I will not however assert that the inhabitants of Magna Graecia or 
of Southern Gaul, or even readers at Rome, who were acquainted with 
the Greek language, did not anciently subjoin to the Greek MSS. gloss- 
es, explanations, and ill-judged emendations. They might do it with 
as much right as their brethren in Asia, in Peloponnesus, or Alexan- 
dria. Yet our observations on the history of the text, exhibit but a 
single example, (viz. Luke 12: 30, ἑσπερενὴ qudaxy,) which seems 
rather to have been of Italian than pure Greek origin. But I do stead- 
fasuy deny that in ancient times the Greek copies were purposely, from 
prejudice and excessive veneration for the Latin Version, corrupted ac- 
cording to it, and the Bibles of other countries and nations interpolated 
from it. _ Such an idea could never have been regarded with favor by 
learned men, except when they forgot their learning; it is an idea 
which has hitherto been the greatest hindrance to the development of 
the history of the text. 

If the inaccuracies of occidental copyists, as 6. g. the readings, JTé- 
τρους, λεπρώσου, κατεγέλων αὐτὸν, found in D, are alleged by any one 
as evidence of corruption by the Latins, let it be remembered that in 
this discussion we have no concern with the unintentional ignorance of 
copyists. 

If the Latins did thus interpolate, why is it that no Greek MSS. pre- 
vious to the Montfortian Codex in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, 


5 Ambros. De Spirit. Sanct. L. II. ¢. 5. De fide. L. II. c. 4. ὧν 


100 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


contain the celebrated passage of the three witnesses, I. John 5: 7, 
which stands in several Latin Fathers and Bibles? It was, on account 
of its doctrinal importance, at least worth the trouble of attempting 
something in its favor. Now if nothing of the kind was done by the 
ancients in this place, why should it have been done in other places, in 
which not even the remotest prejudice in behalf of a creed or of certain 
favorite opinions could operate ? 

There is an important doctrinal reading of genuine Latin origin in 
John 3: 6, which occurs in Tertullian thus: “quod de carne natum est, 
caro est, guia ex carne natum est, et id quod de spiritu natum est, spirit- 
us est, guia Deus spiritus est, et de Deo natus est.” Yet it appears in no 
Greek Codex before the twelfth century, and even then not in its whole 
extent.2. ‘The same Codex has several such readings of Latin origin ; yet 
they were not introduced into this MS. by a Latin, but a Greek, and by 
no means mald fide in order to corrupt the text. The copyist says 
himself, at John 7: 29 where he has inserted such an addition, that he 
borrowed it from Latin MSS; for the marginal note: εἰς τὸ Ῥωμαϊΐχον 
εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο εὗρον is, as Birch assures us, αὖ ipsa primd manu. 

Something however of the nature alleged, very naturally took place 
at this period. It had become the most earnest endeavor of the Greeks 
to end at once the protracted schism, to bury animosities, and to effect 
a reconciliation with the Latins. They proposed to the Pope every 
means of reconciliation, for the purpose of arming the entire Western 
world against the East, which threatened the destruction of the Empire 
of Constantinople, and of inducing it to enter upon the celebrated 
crusades which would assist their sinking state. Under these cir- 
cumstances, attempts of the kind which we observe in Codex Barbe- 
rinus 10, were natural and are easily comprehended. It was at this 
period that the Latin text obtained an influence over the copies of other 
nations which criticism must wish had never been acquired. The close 
connexion which the Armenian princes maintained with the crusades, 
brought Haitho, king of Armenia, to a knowledge of the Latin lan- 
guage and version, according to which, unfortunately, he altered and 
as he thought amended the Bible of his own nation. 

Now, as it is not only impossible to prove that any thing of this sort 
took place in high antiquity, but the contrary rather is evinced on indis- 
putable grounds, the agreement of the first Latin versions with D, or 
with the MS. exhibited on Thomas of Charkel’s margin, can be explain- 
ed only from the fact, that these MSS. present-the free text of the χουν) 
ἔκδοσις, and the most ancient Latin versions were made from copies of 
the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις. Hence these versions are in truth, with the excep- 
tion of what Latin authors of glosses may have smuggled into them, 
monuments of the most ancient text. 


§ 28. 


The Latins in their MSS. frequently placed the Greek text by the 
side of their version, not in order to corrupt it, but that easy recourse 
might be had, when thought necessary, to the original text. The Greek 


1 Tertull. De carne Christi. c. 18. Ambros. De Spirit. Sanct. Εν ΜΠ eb ον. 
2 Cod. Barber. 10. in Birch Prolegom. in IV. Evangel. p. ΧΧΧΙΠΠ. seq. 


FIRST PERIOD. 101 


text which they used, was that of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις. In other coun- 
tries, as soon as an amended text was obtained, the old was generally 
consigned to oblivion, or to some place of deposit in which were pre-: 
served the labors of the ancient fathers; but not so among the Latins. 
They clung tenaciously to this old edition, which was so closely related 
to their versions ; and regarded the recensions, two of which appeared at 
nearly the same time, as innovations. Gelasius rejected these recen- 
sions, and in his decree, the words of which we shall quote hereafter, 
classed them among the apocryphal writings; and even Jerome, who 
possessed incomparably more acquaintance with biblical literature, did 
not think at all more favorably of them, as we shall see hereafter. 

Hence, when this father received a commission from Damasus to 
amend one of these Latin versions, which was afterwards to be prescrib- 
ed for general use, he, for this purpose, made use only of such ancient 
Greek MSS. as did not deviate widely from the common text of the La- 
tins.' The last characteristic would have been sufficient to assure us 
that they must have been such Codiccs as are called Latinizing among 
us, even had he not used the expression ancient Greek MSS. by which 
he intends to make it clear. But the word ancient further informs us, 
that they were not copies of the text of the recensions, as these came 
into circulation hardly eighty years before this father. 

Since, then, in the days of Jerome the zoevy ἔκδοσις had no rival in 
the West, and even towards the close of the fifth century, was confirm- 
ed in its exclusive authority by a decree of Pope Gelasius, we need no 
further explanation how, after its general circulation elsewhere had 
ceased, it could come to us in a MS. whose age cannot reach so high 
as the fifth century, or how it could have been preserved by the side of 
a Latin version, in a MS. of Italian or Southern Gallic origin, such as 
the Cambridge Codex. 

From these observations we may predict what we have to expect in 
the various Graeco-Latin MSS. now extant. Among these I know of 
one remarkable Codex of the four Gospels, which has returned for a 
time ‘to deep obscurity, until it can appear in daylight in a country 
which has not met with so fearful a lot as our own. I intended to have © 
adorned this history of the text by its aid ; but the events of the last few 
years have destroyed more than one hope of this kind. 


§ 29. 


There are also some MSS. of more recent date in our critical stock, 
which accord in a peculiar manner with the Cambridge Codex and with 
such (e. g. Band L) as resemble it. One of these MSS. is Wetst. I. 
or Basil. V1. 27, a copy of the four Gospels of the tenth century ; the 
other parts of the New Testament which are bound with it, are not of 
the same date. There is, besides, Wetst. 13, or Codex Reg. 2244. of 
the Gospels, (also called Kiisteroparisin. 6.) of the thirteenth century ; 
and Wetst. 69. in the library at Leicester, of the fourteenth ; also Gries- 
bach’s 124, and a Vienna MS. Lambec. 31. of the twelfth century, con- 
taining the Gospels. 


1 Epist. ad Damas. “Codicum Graecorum.... . collatione, sed veterum, 


102 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


These MSS. were mostly written at a period in which it was possible 
for the Latin version to have an influence upon the condition of 
the Greek text, and, as we have seen, really had. There is there- 
fore a well- -grounded suspicion respecting them, that they are Codices 
Latinizantes, and that the resemblance between D and them may ‘have 
been occasioned by transferring into them from the Latin Bibles, those 
readings which the latter derived originally from the κοινὴ £00016, 
from which they were translated. 

I. Yet there are in these MSS., viz. 1, 18, 69, 124, very ancient 
readings which occur no where else. Cod. 13 and 124 read in Matt. 
15: 6. ἡκυρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοὺ ϑεοῦ, as Ptolemy in the second centu- 
ry worded the passage in his Letter to "Flora, n.2. He has also given 
Luke 6: 29, with the peculiar reading, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, 
(Ep. ad Flor. n. 4.) which is to be found only in 69 and 194. Porphy- 
ry charged Matthew with ignorance for ascribing to Isaiah the citation, 
Matt. 13: 35 ;! while of the MSS. now extant, only 1, 18, 38, 124, and 
MS. 10, read διὰ Ησαΐου τοῦ προφήτου. Mark 8: 3l, the Peschito 
and Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. c. 76. and 100. ) have given τῇ 
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι, as do 1, 19, 69, 124. Luke 6: 36, Justin read : 
οἰχτίρμονες εἷς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος (Dial. cum Tryph. Cc. 
96.); just so 13, 69, 124. Luke 19: 26, Marcion read: καὶ 0 δοκεῖ 
ἔχειν ἀρϑήσεται᾽ so also Codex 69. 

If. They have many readings in common with Origen, which are 
met with in none of the ancient and in few of the more modern MSS. 
This is true especially of Codex 1, or Basil. B. VI. 27, which, besides, 
on account of its antiquity, having been written in the tenth century 
during the schism of the Greeks, is not liable to the charge of Latiniz- 
ing ; but it is true also of the others in many cases. Yet it isincumbent 
on me to prove it in respect to the Basil MS. just named, in order to re- 
move every possible suspicion of its Latinizing. For this purpose I 
have selected only such readings as it alone of al! the MSS. now known 
contains, or has in common with only one or two MSS. of modern date. 
The passages here noticed have already been taken from Origen’s 
works, and hence do not now need a particular citation. 

In Matt. 6: 25, the words καὶ τί πίητε are omitted in this Codex ; 
as also by Clement of Alexandria and Justin. In Matt. 7: 28, it reads 
πάντες οἱ ὄχλοι" 8 8: 8, it omits ὁ παῖς μου" 10: 29, it reads (as also 13, 
124) φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἕτεραν, καν ἐκ ταύτης διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς φεύγετε 
εἰς τὴν ἀλλην᾽ 13: 36, εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ" 18: 52, ὅστις MOOMEOEL ἐκ 
του ϑησαυροῦ" 14: 86, ἵνα xav μόνον" so also Cod. 13 and 38, ἴῃ 
15: 11, κοινοῖ cov ἄνθρωπον: is wanting : 15: 22, it reads δεινῶς δαι- 
novitecae’ 16: 12, ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρτων, ἀλλ ano... . 16: 19, ὅσα ἂν δή-- 
σης. . δεδεμένα. Bing . καὶ ὅσα ἂν λύσης. .λελυμένα; 18: 8, 
βληϑῆναι εἰς τήν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός" 18: 10, after ᾿ἄγγελοι, αὐτῶν, ἐν 
οὐρανοῖς is wanting ; so also Cod. 13.—18: ‘17, it reads : ἔστω σοὶ τὸ 
λουπόν" 18: 25, it omits 0 κύριος αὐτοῦ; 18: 27, for τὸ δάνειον it puts 
πᾶσαν τὴν ὀφειλήν; ; 19: 29, for ἢ πατέρα, ἢ μητέρα it puts ‘7 γονεῖς" 
21: 13, πεποιήκατε σπήλαιον'᾽ 22: 7, it writes ἀνεῖλε for ἀπώλεσε; 22: 


Αἰ Evangelista vester Matthaeus tam imperitus fuit, ut diceret, ‘ quod scrip- 
tum est per Iesaiam prophetam, ὅσο. Hieronym. Comment. in Ps. 77. 


FIRST PERIOD. 103 


16, πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου; 24: 48, κύριός μου ἔρχεσϑαι. All these 
readings, which we have here extracted from the Gospel of Matthew, 
and most of which this Codex alone contains without agreeing with any 
other, occur in the works of Origen, nearly all of which were composed 
before he prepared his Recension of the text. Hence they are certain- 
ly ancient, and their origin falls in the time of the κοινὴ éxdoocs. 

III. We meet with many of the peculiar readings of this MS. in the 
Peschito: this is however more especially the case with the MSS. 19, 
69, 124. ΟΥ̓ this we will present proof. In Matt. 14:7, the MSS. 13 
and 124 read omooer for ὡμολόγησεν; 14: 24, Ade σταδίους πολλοὺς 
ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀπείχειν, 13 and 124. —16: 27, 1 and 124 have zara τὰ 
ἔργα for κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν" 21: 26, εἶχον ἴον ἔχουσι" 22: 37, 13, 69, 
124 read διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἐσχυύϊ Gov'—Mark 8: 29, 0 Χριο- 
τὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, 19, 69, 124, —9: 11, πὼς οὖν ᾿λέγουσιν' 
13, 69, 124. —9: 34, ἐν τὴ 00m, τίς αὐτῶν μείζων εἴη" 19, 69.-- ͵ὶ: 19, 
ἦλθεν εἰς αὐτὴν, εἰ ἄρα" 69, 124, —12: 6, ὕστερον. δὲ τε, for ἔτι οὖν. 
13, 69, 124.—14: 64, ᾿βλασφημίας τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, 13, 69, 124.— 
14: 67, ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν for ἰδοῦσα τὸν Πέτρον" i; 69.15: 6, κατὰ τὴν 
ἑορτὴν εἰωϑει ὁ ἡγέμων ἀπολύειν. 13, 69, 194. 

IV. We discover many of their peculiarities in Egypt in the The- 
ban or Memphitic version, and in the Alexandrian MS. in the cloister 
of the Antonians, from which Thomas of Charkel made extracts. 

Hence it appears that the MSS. under consideration do not contain 
a text collected from modern materials, and which has received its pre- 
sent form from the blunders and caprices of later copyists united in one 
disorderly mass ; but that those readings which are peculiar are in part 
very ancient. And though it is moreover remarkable that their text 
agrees so nearly with the unusual readings of Codex D, it is rather to 
be supposed, that this agreement originated i in ancient times, than that 
it was occasioned by the Latin versions at a period when the Latin ver- 
sions which contain such readings (namely those antecedent to Jerome) 
were preserved only here and there as rare copies entirely supplanted 
by the dominant text. 

Hence suspicion can attach itself no longer to any passages but those 
which bear a striking resemblance to the Latin text of Jerome or Alcu- 
in. And were 1 freely to concede something of this sort in respect 
to those MSS. which were written at the period of the reconciliation 
between the Greeks and Latins, i. e. in the twelfth century and after- 
wards, as was the case with the MSS. 13, 69, and 124, there would yet 
remain the general conclusion that, such passages excepted, they pre- 
sent a very ancient text, nearly that of Codex D, i. e. the χοενὴ 
ἔκδοσις. 

Now the reason why, long after the κουνὴ ἔχδοσις had gone out of 
use, transcripts were still made from it, was, I suppose, that the /ibra- 
rit, who knew nothing of an amended text, eagerly copied such MSS. 
as were recommended by a venerable exterior and the marks of high 
antiquity. 

In conclusion I have further to observe, that Codex 124 harmonises 
more than its companions with the old Syriac version, and with a Re- 
cension which was formed from MSS. of the xocv7 ἔκδοσις of Syria. 


104 ; HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


§ 30. 


, Now as the Cambridge MS. gives us a representation of the κοινὴ 
éx0oorg of the Gospels, we may reasonably expect to find the same in 
the Acts of the Apostles. And certainly its text in this book resembles 
very much that of the Gospels. It deviates just as much from the usu- 
al track of MSS., contains as many notes and glosses of learned and un- 
learned men, and evinces everywhere that many persons have been 
concerned in adding to it, and in putting it into a condition which re- 
sembles any thing rather than that of a MS. which has been tested by 
the rules of criticism and purified from every thing extraneous. 

There is a most evident resemblance to this MS. in the Codex of 
William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, which once, it is clear, be- 
longed to the Venerable Bede, and is now preserved in the Bodleian 
Library at Oxford. It contains the Acts of the Apostles, and bears the 
mark E, among the MSS. of that book. 

Of asimilar character was one of those MSS. which Thomas of 
Charkel found at Alexandria, in the beginning of. the seventh century, 
among the antiquities of the Antonian monastery, and collated upon 
the margin of the Philoxenian version. 

To which may be added an ancient Egyptian version, in the Theban 
dialect ; probably the most ancient of that country. Ὁ . 

These four monuments present us with the χουνὴ éxdooeg of Egypt 
and the West, as respects the Acts of the Apostles. 

The character of the text of this period in another country, Syria, is 
presented as faithfully as it could be by a single document, in the 
Church-version of the Syrians, the Peschito. 

This view of the Acts, is a natural deduction from that which we 
have just taken of the χοινὴ éxdoorg of the Gospels. The former 
stands or falls according to the fate of the latter. Yet we have several 
other arguments to support our position in regard to the Acts of the 
Apostles. 

The ancient fathers have quoted this book much less frequently than 
the Gospels. These latter documents of Christianity were much 
the richest in information and in materials for moral and doctrinal dis- 
courses, and also for polemical purposes. For these reasons, Justin and 
Theophilus of Antioch and even Clement of Alexandria have seldom 
made use of the Acts of the Apostles. The same holds true also of 
Origen, a very voluminous writer. Irenaeus, from the order of his sub- 
jects and the method pursued by him, was led more frequently than any 
other of the ancients to this book ; but unfortunately we have scarcely 
the tenth part of this father’s haeresiological works in their original 
language. » Time has destroyed the rest, and has left us, instead, only 
a Latin translation. Yet we can sometimes still discover, from the con- 
nexion, what he read in his copy of the Acts of the Apostles. But 
this agreeable assistance is not afforded us so frequently as we ‘could 
wish or as we stand in need of it. 

If we may judge from the translation, Irenaeus found in his biblical 
MS. at Acts 2: 24, instead of rag ὠδῖνας τοῦ ϑανάτου, the expression 
τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ edov. We cannot, indeed, certainly determine from 


FIRST PERIOD. 105 


the connexion, that the translator found it so in the original; but a 
more ancient father, Polycarp, quotes the passage exactly so in his E- 
pistle to the Philippians, and so it stands in D.' ‘The father’s reading 
of Acts 4: 31, is yet extant in the Greek, according to which his copy 
had, after μετὰ παρῥησίας, the addition :* παντὶ τῷ ehoved MLOTEVELV, 
which is read i in the MS. D, and also in E. Codex & has in Acts 8: 
36, after τί κωλ ὕει μὲ βαπτισϑῆναι, the words: εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Φίλιπ- 
mos" ἐὰν πιστεύεις ἐξ ὕλης της xadius σου 009767. ᾿“Ἱποκριϑεὶς δὲ 
εἶπε' πιστεύω εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. Thomas of Char- 
kel found something similar in his ancient Alexandrian copy; D wants 
this. Now it appears from a free citation by Irenaeus, the Greek of 
which is still extant, that this addition certainly existed i in his copy of 
the Acts: ὡς αὐτὸς εὐνοῦχος, says he, πεισϑεὶς, καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν 
βαπτισϑῆναι, ἔλεγε" πισεεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἶναι ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. ᾿ 
In Acts 14: 10, D and another ancient MS. proceed after τῇ φωνῇ 
thus: ool λέγω ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Πησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀνάστηϑι.. 
frenaeus also read this, for he has comprised its purport in a free nar- 
rative: “Ἐπ iterum Lystris, et Lyciae, cum esset Paulus cum Barnaba, 
a nativitate claudum in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi ambulare fe- 
cisset.”4 This father found too, as Semler has already remarked, in 
Acts 15: 2, the addition contained in D and in the MS. of Thomas of 
Charkel. At least he read one half of it: οἱ δὲ ἐληλυϑότες ἀπὸ ‘Legov- 
σαλὴμ͵ (here Thomas ends) παρηγγείλατο αὐτοῖς, τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ 
Βαρναβᾳ, nai teow ἄλλοις, ἀναβαίνειν. This remarkable reading, 
which makes Paul and Barnabas to have been sent for by the Apostles to 
Jerusalem, is exhibited in part thus in the paraphrastic narrative of Ire- 
naeus: “ Quoniam autem his, qui ad Apostolos vocaverunt eum de 
quaestione, acquievit Paulos, et ascendit ad eos cum Barnaba ad Hiero- 
solymam” &c.° 

In all the works of Clement, I find only two important quotations 
from the Acts of the Apostles. One is from c. 10: v. 11, 12, in which 
D and E, and also two other MSS. agree with him. [{ is ‘the follow- 
ing; καΐτι σχεῦος τέτταρσιν ἀρχαῖς ἐκδεδεμένον ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ 
τετράποδα καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς, καὶ τὰ πτηνά του οὐρανοῦ ἐν αὐ-- 
τῷ, κι t. 4. We easily see that this has several peculiarities.© The 
other is from Acts 16: 23--28 ; he quotes it in the fourth book of his 
Stromata, and a part of it again in the fifth.’ The remarkable readings 
in it are: χέέρων ἀνϑρωπίνων, in which he is accompanied by D and 
another older MS ; πᾶν γένος ἀνϑρώπων, in which the MS. of Thomas 
of Charkel agrees with him ; and lastly ζητεῖν τὸ ϑεῖον, as is read in Ὁ 
and the Latin text of Irenaeus. To these may be added Acts 7: 22, 
where he had in his copy πᾶσαν τὴν σοφίαν, like Codex D.® 


1 Lib. III. Ady. Haer. c. 12. n. 2. Polycarp. Segm. 2. 

2 Lib. II. Adv. H.c. 19. η. 5. 3 Ibid. n. 8. 

4 1,. 111. ὁ. 12. ἡ. 9. 

5 L. III. ¢. 13. n. 8. and Semler Proleg. in Epist. ad Galat. p. 50. 
6 Paedagog. L. II. p. 149. Sylb. and 175. Venet. 
7 Strom. L. 1. c.19. Stromat. L. ν. c, 11. and 12. 

8 Strom. L. I. c..23. 


14 


106 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


Since large and express quotations from the Acts of the Apostles sel- 
dom occur among the ancients, it is the more worthy of observation 
that these few exhibit so many and so considerable variations, almost 
exclusively peculiar to D and E and the MS. of the Antonians at Alex- 
andria. “ΓΘ. striking uniformity in remarkable readings, which ap- 
pears in the few remains we have on one side, affords reasonable ground 
for presuming that a like agreement would be visible, could the whole 
on both sides be presented to our inspection. ᾿ 


§ 31. 


In attempting to compose a short sketch of the history of the text of 
the Acts of the Apostles from the documents enumerated above, we are 
led to the following observations. 

1. Expressions which were uncommon or obscure, were often ex- 
changed for those which were more current or intelligible. Sometimes 
a difficult clause was helped by the insertion of a word or some small 
alteration. 

2. Frequently such circumstances as are understood of themselves 
and had been omitted from the conciseness of the style, were supplied 
by an interpolation. Thus what D and the MS. of the Antonians have 
added after παραγενόμενοι, in Acts 6: 22, viz. καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τὴν φυ- 
λακὴν, is naturally to be understood. So as to what the copy from 
which the Peschito was made added in Acts 14: ὦ: ἐπήγειραν---τὰ ἐϑ-- 
vy, ἵνα κακώσουσι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς---καὶ ἐκάκωσαν τὰς... . Just So, 
Acts 22: 26, the clause which in D follows ὦ ἑκατόνταρχος, Viz. OTL 
“Powuioy ἑαυτὸν λέγει, is contained in the narrative without the ad- 
dition. 

3. Sometimes historical circumstances not contained in the text 
were supplied. E.g. the Syriac κοινὴ ἔκδοσις in Acts 12: 1 distin- 
guishes “Πρωδὴης 0 βασιλεύς from several others of the same name by 
adding 0 ἐπικαλούμενος Ayoinnag. Thus the MS. of the Antonians, 
Acts 12: 5, notes that Peter was not in the custody of a Roman guard, 
but τῆς σπείρης του βασιλέως. In the same chapter, v. 10, a circum- 
stance is mentioned respecting the prison, which is also preserved by 
tradition, viz. καὶ ἐξελϑόντες-- χατέβησαν τοὺς ἑπτὰ βαϑμοὺς---προ-- 
ἤλθον ῥὁυμὴν. .. . just as the passage occurs in D. 

4, We must suppose that legends were very early collected respect- 
ing celebrated men of the primitive times of Christianity. On this 
supposition we can explain the appearance presented by the narratives 
concerning Cornelius the centurion and Aquila. For the κοινὴ ἔκδο- 
σις gives them enlarged by circumstances which were drawn from such 
accounts and noted upon the margin of the Acts, and afterwards incor- 
porated by Zzbrarti with the text. The following example respecting 
Aquila is taken from D and the MS. of the Antonians at Acts 18: 27, 
ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἐφέσῳ ἐπιδημοῦντές τινὲς Κορίνϑιοι καὶ ἀκούσαντες αὐτοῦ, 
παρέκαλουν συνελϑεῖν σὺν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτῶν, συγκατα-- 
νεύσαντος δὲ αὐτου, οἱ βφέσιοι ἔγραψαν τοῖς ἐν Κορίνϑῳ μαϑηταῖς 
πὼς ἀποδέξωνταυ τον ἄνδρα, ὃς ἐπιδημήσας εἰς τὴν ᾿“χαΐαν, πολυ 
συνεβάλλετο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. A similar example respecting Cor- 
nelius occurs in the same two MSS. Acts 10: 24, and 11: 1. 


FIRST PERIOD. 107 


τ 5. Into this book, as into the Gospels, whenever occasion offered, 
passages were transferred from other biblical writings of the Old or 
New Testament; but the opportunity was not so frequent as in the 
Gospels. In Acts 7: 24, after τὸν Aiyuntiov, the words: καὶ ἔκρυψ- 
ἐν ἐν τῷ ἄμμῳ are added from Exodus ὦ: 12. So tooin ἢ. ‘There is 
a similar case in MS. E, Acts 7: 3; Comp. Genesis 12: 1. In D there 
is arn addition to Acts 15: 20, borrowed from Matt. 7: 12: καὶ ὅσα μή 
ϑέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσϑαι, ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε. 

6. Numerous irregularities in this book arose from the church-les- 
sons. We will not unnecessarily multiply proofs of this assertion; two 
examples only shall suffice. A church-lesson commenced at Acts 3: 1, 
and also at 5: 1; hence we find in the text of D, at the commencement 
of the first of these lessons, the trite formula: ἐν dé ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύ- 
ταῖς; and the second occasioned a similar interpolation in E: ἐν αὐτῷ 
δὲ τῷ καιρῷ ἀνήρ τις ᾿ΑἸνανίας .. 

Such briefly are the various species of corruptions; but the number 
of particular instances comprehended under them is incomparably 
greater in this book than in either of the Evangelists. Many of them, 
too, are of such extent that the MSS. of the Gospels can show nothing 
like them, excepting perhaps the well known passage, Matt. 20: 28. 
Hence the Acts of the Apostles, in reality, suffered in the period of 
which we are treating more than any other book in all the New Tes- 
tament. 

Tt was least disfigured in Syria; at all events the Peschito, which is 
at present the only standard we have by which to judge, does not con- 
tain so many or so extensive variations as we find elsewhere. ‘The few 
dangerous circumstances which it had to encounter in Syria, on which 
we have before remarked, ( 26.) afford us a satisfactory explanation of 
the mild fate of this book in that country. 

But the fate experienced by the Acts of the Apostles in Egypt, and 
particularly the city which was its capital at that period, was different 
and much more severe. Yet the MSS. which originated there, were , 
not all exposed to the same injuries; there is such a difference in their 
condition, as we should expect from a period in which every individual 
heedlessly added glosses to his Codex. 

The Cod. Laud. or E, contains a purer text of the Acts than Ὁ. In 
the former variations are frequently found which exist in a more en- 
larged state in Ὁ. Εἰ. g. after ov δυνήσεσϑε καταλύσαι αὐτούς, in 
Acts 5: 39, E adds: οὔτε ὑμεῖς οὔτε οἵ ἄρχονιες ὑμῶν ; this addition 
D extends thus: οὔτε ὑμεῖς, οὔτε οἱ βασιλεῖς, οὔτε τύραννοι, ἀπέχεσ-- 
Ge οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, μήποτε... . and in Acts 19:49, 
after yagere τοῦ ϑεοὺ, E proceeds: ἐγένετο δὲ κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν φη- 
μισϑῆναι τὸν λόγον, D adds something further: ἐγένετο δὲ καϑ' ὅλης 
τῆς πόλεως διελϑεῖν τὸν λόγον τοὺ ϑεοῦ. 

Nearly as in other respects the MS., which was found and collated 
by Thomas of Charkel in the monastery of the Antonians, resembles 
MS. D, the former is much the most disfigured. Wetstein supposed 
that the MS. of the Antonians was the same which is now at Cam- 
bridge ; but that learned man was so strongly impressed by their simi- 
larities, that he did not consider how much richer in unusual readings 
the Alexandrian Codex was than our own. 


+ 
108 HISTORY OF THE TEXT, 


As the readings of the MS. E often lie at the basis of the MS. D, 
and are enlarged in the latter, it is not rash to consider the text of E 
as the oldest, although the copy through which it has reached us is not 
of so high antiquity. But the text of the latter and of that possessed by 
the Antonians affords us no marks by which to decide respecting the 
priority of either ; for the greater or less corruption in the text, taken 
alone, determines nothing as to an earlier or a later age, since this de- 
pends upon the possessors it chanced to have, and upon their disposi- 
tion to add glosses. 


§ 89. 


Having once entered upon these investigations, we must grant them 
that further attention which is needful to complete them, however little 
their dry and grave exterior may recommend them. I have labored to 
present them as simply as possible, and have invariably confined myself 
within the limits of absolute necessity, that I might not, by an unsea- 
sonable profusion of learning, rather obscure our investigations than 
elucidate and satisfy them. 5 

We must now inquire whether there have been preserved any MSS. 
of the Pauline Epistles which exhibit their xovv7 ἔχδοσις, and if so, 
which they are? It is natural that we should again consult that writer 
of the period in question, who from the great extent of his works is pe- 
culiarly fitted to clear up a point which can be decided only by the 
comparison of many citations. 

Clement of Alexandria agrees with the MSS. ABC and DEFG, 
which are nearly related to each other. When both classes agree, 
which not unfrequently happens, his readings are like both. But 
though these two classes of MSS. frequently harmonise with each oth- 
er, they have yet in general a very different character. 

For the MSS. ABC contain a revised text, (which fact we shall as- 
sume at present, until we can take a more particular view of them,) 
while on the contrary the lawless character of the others does not e- 
vince any critical pruning. We must consequently seek in DEFG for 
the κοινὴ ἔχκδοσις of the Pauline Epistles. If this conclusion be cor- 
rect, the agreement between these two families of MSS. is immediately 
accounted for. DEFG are the older stock, and ABC are their off- 
spring. The former are transcripts of the copies which, in the times 
of a loose text, were in circulation in Alexandria, or more extensively 
in Egypt and Africa; but the text of the latter was formed after an 
amendment of it had been set on foot, and it still preserves marks of 
its origin. 

Codex D of the Pauline Epistles, (to give a short notice of these 
MSS ; but we shall speak of them more particularly in the sequel,) is 
the so called Clermont MS., written stichometrically in uncial letters, 
with one of the Latin versions prior to Jerome by its side. E is a MS. 
of the former Abbey of St. Germain at Paris, a copy of the preceding. 
F has long defied all the inquiries of the learned ; it was formerly in 
the possession of a Benedictine house in Reichenau. It is in Greek 
and Latin, and contains the Epistle to the Hebrews in the latter lan- 
guage only. G, or the so called Boernerian MS., now in the royal li- 
brary at Dresden, is its companion. 


FIRST PERIOD. 109 


These have a very great agreement with ABC, but still deviate from 
them in some striking peculiarities, and are, in general, much more 
lawless. Whenever the two classes agree with each other, Clement al- 
most always agrees with both. When they separate, he inclines to the 
side of A, B, and C; but not so constantly that he does not sometimes 
favor the peculiar readings of Ὁ, Εἰ, F, andG. We will select some 
examples, in which DEFG are forsaken by all the ancient MSS. and 
by nearly all the modern, and notwithstanding are accompanied by 
Clement. 

In the Epistle to the Romans, 3: 26, there is a small peculiarity 
which occurs only in D and Clement, but gives the passage a totally 
different turn; they both read tov ἐχ πίστεως Jnoovv.! In Rom. 5: 
12, ἀνθρώπους ὃ ϑάνατος διῆλϑεν, Clement reads, ἀνθρώπους διὴῆλ- 
Mev? like DEFG, without ϑάνατος. Rom. 10: 21, Clement transposes 
thus: ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖρας μου ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν" in this he is alone ; 
he then says: ἐπὶ λαὸν anecd’. . . . in which DE agree with him. 
Rom. 14: 17, οὖν ἡμῶν τὸ ayad’. ... say Clement’ and DEF. In 
the Paedagogus, in which he sometimes gives different readings from 
those in his other writings, following consequently a different copy, in 
1 Cor. 9: 5, ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, he reads yuvetxas,> as do the 
Latins, Tertullian, and others, muleres, uxores: D too contains the 
reading γυναῖκας. In 1 Cor. 9: 22, ἵνα πάντως τινάς, he cites ἵνα 
πάντας, as DEF and G read ;° and v. 27, ὑπὸ πιεεζωΐ as DE. In 1 Cor. 
12: 10, he has the singular number διάκρεσις,8 in which he is support- 
ed by the MS.Gonly. In 1 Cor. 13: 12, he reads with DEFG βλέπ- 
ouev ἄρτι, and with DE ὡς δὶ ἐσόπτρου. In 1 Cor. 14: 11, he has, 
like DEFG, λαλών ἐμοὶ βάρβ. . . .° In 2 Cor. 11: 8, like DEG, av- 
τοῦ φϑαρὴ without οὕτω. In Galat. 3: 19, like DFG, éréo7. In 
Eph. 4: 9, he, or rather Theodotus, omits μέρη, as do DEFG.8 Τὴ 
Eph. 4: 13, only Clement and G read ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ ϑεοῦ. Eph. 
4: 19, he cites πάσης πλεονεξίας,}5 agreeing with DEFG; and in v. 23 
and 24, where he reads ἀνανεοῦσϑε and ἐνδύσασϑε, G agrees with 
him. In Philipp. 3: 14, Clement and G have the words ἄνω χλήσεως 
ἐν Χοιστῷ." In Coloss. 1: 28, he reads διδασκόντες ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ: 


1 Paedagog. L. I. p. 119. Heins. et Sylburg. Paris 1641. or p. 141. Ed. Venet. 
2 L. III. Strom. ο. 9. 3 L. 11. Strom. ο. 9. 

4 L, II. Paedag. p. 142. Sylb. 165. Venet. 

5 L. ll. Paedag. p. 144. Sylb. 169. Venet. 

6 L. V. Strom. c. 3. 7 L. III. Strom. c. 16. 8 L. IV. Strom. c. 21. 


9 L. I. Strom. c. 19. L. V.'Strom. c. 1. Pedag. L. I. p. 99. Sylb. and 120. 
Venet. 


10 Strom. L. I. c. 16. 11 Strom. L. III. 6.11. 14. 12 Strom. L. 1. c. 26. 
13 Theod. de Doctr. Orient. c. 43. 


14 Paed. L. I. p. 88. Sylb. 108. and L. IV. Strom. c. 21. where however Syl- 


burg, as he himself confesses in the note, has followed the leztus receptus, con- 
trary to the MS. of Clement. 


15 Cohort. p. 54. Sylb. 70. Venet. 

16 Paedag. L. IIT. p. 224. Sylb. 262. Venet. Strom. L. 11]. ὁ. 15. 
17 Paed. L. I. p. 107. Sylb. 129. Venet. 

18 Strom. L. 1. 6. 1. towards the end. 


110 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


so also DEFG. In Coloss. 1: 26, he seems to have had in his text in- 
stead of τοῖς ἁγίοις, the words τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ, although our 
present editions give the first. For he immediately draws this conclu- 
sion from his quotation: wore ἀλλα μὲν τὰ μυστήρια τὰ ἀποκεχρυμ- 
μένα μέχρι τῶν ἀποστόλων, κι. τ. A. which suits only the reading of the 
MSS. FG, τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ. Moreover, in Coloss. 3: 5, he, like 
FG, omits κακήν, and in 1 Thess. 5: 21, he ‘reads πάντα δὲ δοκιμά- 
‘tere; 33 so also DEFG, &c. &c. 

It ‘happens, however, much more frequently that he presents the read- 
ings of DEFG when they harmonise with one of the MSS. ABC. Oc- 
casionally when Clement forsakes them, Origen supplies his place and 
by his agreement with these MSS. shows that. they resemble very much 
the oldest Alexandrian text. One ‘of the Egyptian versions too, the 
Thebaic, in the few remains we have of it, closely resembles these 
MSS. 

Yet, although Clement evidently inclines to these in general, he dif- 
fers from them remarkably in some places and presents us readings 
which are found at present no where else. I will quote some examples 
of citations so long that he could not well have given them from memo- 
ry: e. g. Galat. 3: 26, which he read as follows : πάντες γὰρ viol ἐστε 
διὰ πίστεως ϑεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ "]ησοῦ. 4 Eph. 6: 9: ev ποιεῖτε “τούς 
οἰκέτας ὑμῶν ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν Eph. 5: 25, οἱ ἄνδρες τὰς γυ- 
ναῖκας τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀγαπάτωσαν ; 35 so also v. 22, where he read with 
Codex A: ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν, he changes the order of the words in 
Rom. 12: 13: τὴν qedok. . . . διωκ.. ... ταῖς YO: τῶν ay, κοιν. 

..7 Also 1 Cor. 1: 21: διὰ κηρύγματος τῆς μωρίας σώσαι.δ Rom. 15: 
4 appears still more remarkable: zai τῆς παρακλήσεως THY γραφὼν 
τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν τῆς παρακλήσεως "ὃ ;? yet perhaps we may reasona- 
bly suppose this to have been a quotation from memory. This supposi- 
tion, however, cannot so easily be made in respect to 1 Thess. 5: 7. 
οἱ μεϑύοντες νυκτὸς μεϑύσκονται. Τὸ be brief, there are many mi- 
nuter variations which are remarkable ; ; such as in Eph. 2: 3, where he 
merely left out the word φύσει, and 2 Cor. 6: 16, where for εἶπεν ὁ ὃε- 
ὃς he read εἶπεν ὁ προφήτης, 1" and many others. 

The MSS. DEFG most probably present a text nearly allied to the 
Alexandrian or Egyptian ; but their conformity with it is not sufficient 
to permit us to consider their text as the same. 

Did the removal of these MSS. to the West have an inftnedte upon 
their text and procure them many glosses and supposed emendations, 
which otherwise they would not have contained? I have no doubt of 


1 Strom. L. V. c. 10. 2 Strom. L. III. ¢. 5. 

3 Paedag. L. III. p. 264. Sylb. 308. Venet. 

4 Paedeg. L. I. p. 95. 96. Sylb. 116. Venet. 

5 Paedag. L. III. p. 263. Sylb. 308. Venet. 

6 Paedag. L. III. Loc. cit. 

7 Paedag. L. III. 264. Sylb. 309. Venet. 

8 Strom. L. I. ¢. 18. 9 Strom. L. 1V.c.5. 
10 Paedag. L. II. 186. S. 218. Venet. 

11 Cohort. ad gent. 16. S. 23. Ven. Strom. L. iI. c. 11. 


FIRST PERIOD. 111 


it. Irenaeus, in the few places in which he yet speaks to us in Greek, 
or where it can be gathered from the connexion or from his inferences 
what he found in his copies of the Bible, supports the readings of these 
MSS: e. g. Rom. 11: 32, where he gives navra δἰς ἀπείϑειαν,. like 
DEFG; or Rom. 5: 19, where he reads ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἐνὸς ἀνϑρώπου 
with DEF.2 So | Tim. 1; 4, where he and D have οἰκοδομὴν. In 
1 Cor. 15: 55, he read: ποὺ σου ϑάνατε TO νῖκος, ποῦ σου ϑάνατε TO 
κέντρον ; for he comments upon the passage, and his exposition applies 
only to ϑάνατος ;4 so we find itin DEFG. In Gal. 3: 19, FG read : 
τί οὖν ὁ νόμος τοὺν πράξεων" ἐτέϑη ὀγχωιθῦν νιν where the common 
text has τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; ; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριεν ἐτέϑη, ἄχρις.. In 
Irenaeus it appears in the Latin as in FG; and when we consider his 
reasoning upon it, it is evident that he did not have χάρον in his Bible 
at all, and highly probable that he also read πράξεων instead of naga- 
βάσεων. = 

We might derive further illustration from Marcion’s readings, if in- 
deed he really composed his Apostolikon in the West. The passage 
1 Cor. 10: 19, as he read it: Ore ἱερόϑυτον τί ἔστεν, ἢ εἰδωλόϑυτον τὶ 
ἐστιν, comes very near the MSS. FG. In 1 Cor. 15: ᾽δ0, he read κχλη- 
ρονομῆσαι ου δυνανται simply thus, οὐ κληρονομήσουσι, like FG; and 
in 2 Cor. 5: ὃ, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι ov γυμνοί, like DFG. In Galat. 5: 9, 
he read τὸ φύραμα δολοῖ, like DE; and in Galat. 5: 14, he omitted ἐν 
τῷ before ἀγαπήσεις, as do DFG. All these readings appear in the 
Latin fathers, as also another of this same heretic for which he was re- 
proached, and which occurs in none of the MSS. now extant. It is in 
1 Cor. 14: 19, and is to all appearance only a mistake of the copyist : 
it is διὰ τοῦ νόμου instead of dva τοῦ voos μου. The Latin versions 
which the fathers used must therefore have been made from such copies 
as these ; for we cannot rationally reverse the case, and suppose that 
Marcion | interpolated his Apostolikon from the Latin versions. The 
Latin fathers in whom we find these readings, were not inhabitants of 
Italy or Gaul alone, but most of them of Africa, which is a point wor- 
thy of notice in the history of the text. It is by no means the case that 
all the readings in DEFG which do not occur in Clement or even Ori- 
gen are, on that account merely, not of African origin. 

Were we inclined to attribute to the west too great a share in pro- 
ducing the condition of these MSS. our error would be speedily rectifi- 
ed by ‘the oldest Syriac version, which contains a considerable number 
of those peculiarities which are found in no other MSS. than DEFG. 

From all this, it seems to me, we may adduce the following conclu- 
sion: The MSS. DEFG contain a very ancient text of the period of 
the κοινὴ éxdoocs, nearly allied to the Alexandrian and Egyptian text, 
which passed westward along the coast of Africa and was introduced 
among the Latins in Italy and Gaul. 


1 L. 1. Advers. Haer. c.10.n. 3. 1. III. ¢. 20. n. 2. 

2 Fragm. ex caten. in Luc. p. 347. Ven. et Massuet. 

3 Prolog. in L. I. Adv. Haer. 41. III. c. 23. n. 7. 
5 L. III. Adv. Haer. ο. 7. n. 2. 


* 


112 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


§ 33. 


Supposing this to be correct, we may now select a few of the traits 
of the MSS., in order to present a description of the text of Paul’s 
epistles as it existed at the period when it was treated with most li- 
cense. ; 

We may here at the outset remark with satisfaction that these epis- 
tles have not suffered so much as the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. 
Didactic writings, which are composed in a straight-forward train of 
thought and maintain their unity by a close connexion of ideas, do not 
afford a very free scope for foreign interpolations and glosses; and when 
these are attempted, they soon betray themselves by the confusion which 
is created. But historical compositions, which are so simple and often 
unconnected, and knit together by no internal bond, afford an open 
field for interpolations both great and small. 

The variations of the xovv7 ἔκδοσις of Syria and of Africa are not 
so great by far in these epistles as in the historical books; and the re- 
mark may here be made anew, that the Syriac text is somewhat purer 
than that of Western Africa. 

I. The species of variations which occur in the Pauline Epistles, are 
nearly the same as in other books. Hebraisms have been struck out, 
as, e.g. in Rom. 18: 1, πᾶσα ψυχὴ éouo. .. . ὑποτασσέσϑω, 2D 
wo, DEFG have altered thus, πάσαις ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσϑε. In 2 
Thess. 1: 8, ἐν πυρὶ φλογός AMD ὌΝΞ, ἐν φλογὶ πυρός. Philipp. 2: 
14, χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν, G χωρὶς ὀργῆς. 

II. A more elegant Greek turn was given to harsh phraseology : 
Philipp. 3: 18, ἐμαυτὸν ov λογίζομαι κατειληφότα, FG. Galat. 4: 25, 
ἐν τῇ ’ AoaPig, ἡ ovcroryovow. . . . δουλεύει, DFG. . Eph. 2: 11, 
διὰ τοῦτο μνημονεύοντες ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτέ, FG. Coloss. 1: 26, τὸ μυσ- 
τήριον τὸ ἀποκεχρυμμένον .. . . νυνὶ δὲ Pavegwdév,DE. δυο. &e. 

III. A more common expression was substituted for one less current : 
2 Cor. 12: 18. ἡττήϑητε ὑπὲρ tag... . ἡσσήϑητε maga... DE. 
Rom. 3: 9, movexouedu, DG προκατέχομεν περισσὸν. Rom. 12: 9, 
anootuyourtes, α μισοῦντες. Or at any rate this was written on the 
margin, even if the other was not struck out. Gal. 4: 21, τὸν νόμον 
οὐχ ἀχούετε. in DEFG, some one has written ἀναγενώσκετε by the 
side of axovete’ This substitution must be very ancient, for as early 
as the third century it was united with the original expression in a com- 
pound reading, as appears in Origen’s second book against Celsus, 94 
chapter : οἱ τὸν νόμον ἀναγινώσκοντες τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀχούετε. It is 
pleasant to see how from one variation arises a second, and from ἃ small 
one a larger. Such was the case in Coloss. 2: 15, where some person 
substituted τὴν σάρκα for τὰς ἀρχὰς, as in FG, or (which seems to me 
most probable) unintentionally, in transcribing, changed THN APK A 
into VASAPX AS. The translator of the Peschito found both read- 
ings noted in his copy, and united them both ina third: τὴν σάρκα, 
τὰς ἀρχᾶς, καὶ ἐξουσίας. . .. 

IV. Frequently words were interpolated for the purpose of throwing 
light upon a passage which was expressed somewhat obscurely. The 
passage, 1. Cor. 12: 24, it was thought would become more clear by 


tA 
‘te 


ὦ, 


FIRST PERIOD. 113 


the addition of the word τιμῆς after χρείαν ἔχει, as it appears in DEFG 
and the Peschito. In Philipp. 3: 18, the Peschito inserts the word 
ἑτέρως after περιπατοῦσι : in the same Epist. 4: 18, F and G illustrate 
τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς by the addition πεμφϑέντα, and in Coloss. 4: 9, πάντα 
ὑμῖν γνωριοῦσι τὰ ὧδε, by the addition πραττόμενα. Thus, too, F 
and G help Galat. 5: 24, by dvreg after Χριστοῦ and αὐτῶν after σάρχα. 

V. Parallel passages or expressions from other Epistles were written 
on the margin and afterwards got into the text; in Galat. 4: 17, after 
iva αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε we find in the MSS. DEFG, taken from f Cor. 
12: 31, ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ κρείττονα χαρίσματα ; and in 1 Tim. 6: 9, af- 

_ ter παγίδα in DFG, the addition τοῦ διαβόλου from the same E- 
pist. 3:7. After σπέρμα oov,in Rom, 4: 18, the MSS. FG add ὡς οἱ 
decks TOU οὐρανοῦ, χαὶ τὸ ἄμμον τῆς ϑαλάσσης, taken from the Old 
Testament (Gen. 22: 17). Different readings in the Septuagint gave 
occasion to the alteration which appears in the Peschito in Rom. 9: 25, 
καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην, ἠλεημένην, and in DFG in Cor. 9: 9, χημώ- 
σεις instead of φιμωσεις. 

VI. There occurs besides in these Epistles a species of alteration 
which is peculiar to them, viz. transpositions of words and of construc- 
tion purposely made in order to render it more easy to comprehend the 
Apostle’s periods, which are often long and interrupted by parentheses. 
In Rom. 16: 5, the words καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶχον αὐτῶν ἐχχλησίαν, which 
were separated from the main clause by the whole parenthesis from 
οἵτινες to ἐθνῶν, are transferred 1 in DFG from v. 5 and united to ov- 
νεργ. μου ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Τησοῦ. In 2. Cor. 12: 21, πρὸς ὑμᾶς which, by 
a very harsh, construction, was separated from ἐλ ϑόντα μὲ by the ἐν τὰ 
ἐαπεινώσῃ ὁ ϑέος pov, is united to itin the MSS. DEFG. In I Cor. 
14: 34, Paul interrupts his admonitions respecting the abuse of pro- 
phetic g gifts with the wellknown injunction upon women to be silent in 
the churches, and does not resume the subject of prophecy (v. 37) till 
after a very long parenthesis. ‘These rapid transitions violently drag 
the reader from one circle of ideas to another, and render it difficult for 
common minds to recover the connexion ; on this account the MSS. 
DEFG remove from their position v. 34, 35, αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν as far 
as ἐν ἐχχλησίᾳ λαλεῖν and place them after κατὰ take γινέσθω in 
v. 40. 

In conclusion, no one can be surprised that the text should often 
have suffered in passing to the Latins through the hands of unsuitable 
copyists and ignorant emendators. In Eph. 5: 5, ὅς ἔστιν εἰδωλολά- 
T97S, some person wished to accommodate the Greek to the Latin ter- 
mination Idololatra and wrote ὃς ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία, till finally the 
ὅς was changed into 0 as _we find it now in FG. Again; in 
Galat. 2: 7, πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, creditum est mihi jevangelium, 
memiotevtat μοι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἘῸ ; and Philipp. 4: 8, γνήσιε yeouave 
σύζυγε, FG. 

It is, I think, very difficult to determine which MS. contains the 
most ancient text, although DE have not been subject to so many al- 
terations as FG, It seems, however, more than probable to me, for 
many reasons, that a great part of those additions and changes which 
have been made in Codex D a secundd manu, were taken from G or 


15 
ny 
μ᾿ 
Pa 


salah 


114 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


F, or rather were derived from some more ancient MS. from which Li- 
brarii in the West transcribed F and G. 


§ 34. 


We now come, in order, to the Catholic Epistles; but no MS. of 
them which preserves the text of the χοινὴ éxdoorg has survived. Some 
of them are indeed frequently quoted by the ancients. Clement of Al- 
exandria has in different places quoted nearly half of the first Epistle 
of Peter,! and we perceive from his quotations that these Epistles like- 
wise have met with many mischances. E. g.1 Pet. 3: 1, οἵτινες ἄπειϑον 
τῷ λόγῳ, and 2, τὴν ἐν λόγῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν. 4: 3, ὁ παρεληλυϑὼς 
χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἔϑνων κατειργάσϑαι. 3: 16, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλα- 
λεῖσϑε, καταισχυνθῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες τὴν καλὴν φναστροφὴν ὑμῶν 
ἐν Χριστῷ &c. And Jude, v.5, Ore ὁ ϑεὸς ἅπαξ ἐκ γῆς «Αἰγύπτου 
λαὸν σώσας, and v.6, ὑπὸ ζόφον ἀγρίων ἀγγέλων," from which afterwards 
came ἁγίων ἀγγέλων, and in the ancient Latin versions sanctorum an- 
gelorum. Yet all these citations do little more than inform us that the 
fate of these Epistles was about the same as that of the Pauline Epis- 
tles, without acquainting us with the particular accidents they have ex- 
perienced. We may expect more satisfactory information from the 
Thebaic version, if it shall ever be taken in handas it deserves to be. 


§ 85. 


The case is the same with the Apocalypse; no MS. of it has surviv- 
ed to show us its condition in the earliest times. But we derive very 
satisfactory information respecting it from other quarters. The κοινὴ 
ἔχδοσις as we find it in the hands of western fathers of this period, es- 
pecially those who lived pretty far down in the third century, when it 
had reached the limit of its circulation among the Greeks, would clear- 
ly present the untoward accidents to which the Apocalypse was subject- 
ed, had it been exposed to such accidents. But, in looking at this 
book as cited by Tertullian, and much later by Cyprian, we are sure 
that it has experienced a very lenient fate, in comparison with that of 
other books. 

Its peculiar obscurity was probably one of the reasons which took 
away from many the desire to add glosses to it; nor did the severe char- 
ges long made against it, and the suspicion of spuriousness founded up- 
on these, contribute less to preserve it from injury. It was on these ac- 
counts little read, and to this neglect it is owing that it survived that 
period in better condition than those books which have been injured 
by the industry and application of many individuals. 

The treatise of Hippolytus on Christ and Antichrist, which there is 
good reason for supposing genuine, willin a measure illustrate our asser- 
tion. In that treatise he has quoted some chapters almost entire, and 
the variations which occur will therefore give us an idea of the con- 
dition of the whole book. 

We meet with slight transpositions, small variations in the flexion of 


1 Cohort. ad Gent. p. 40. Sylb. 52. Venet, Pedag. L. I. p.103.S. 124. V. L 
UL, p. 244. 249-50. 253. 256-598, Steonk 1,:.Π|. Ὁ. 11. e118y Goer ΚΒ ἽΝ: 
cf. 4.06. " 

2 Pedag. 1., III. c. 8. p. 239. Sylb, 281. Venet. 


SECOND PERIOD. 115 


words and other deviations of this kind; but we can discover only the 
following important additions or alterations. In Apoc. 11: 5, ϑελήσει 
adm .. . and πῦρ ἐξελεύσεται. In v. 7, he inserts the words: τὸν 
δρόμον αὐτῶν καί before τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτῶν." In Apoc. 12: 16, 
he reads after ἔβαλεν instead of δράκων the word φες : v. 17, μετὰ 
τῶν ἁγίων instead οἵ μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν. 3 Apoc. 17: 7, he inserts τοῦ 
ϑηρίου before τοῦ βαστάζοντος ; ν. 14, καὶ βασιλεὺς βασιλευόντων 
ἐστί Apoc. 18: 2, ἐσχυρᾷ φωνῇ μεγάλη; v. 13, he adds καὶ τρά- 
yous after πρόβατα; v. 19, he uses the expression πιότητος instead 
of τιμιότητος; and v. 20, ‘for ot ἅγιοι the word οἱ ἄγγελοι." The 
most considerable variation occurs at the commencement of the 12th 
chapter, which he begins thus : καὶ ὶ εἶδον σημεῖον μέγα καὶ ϑαυμαστοὸν, 
γυναῖκα περιβεβλημένην τὸν ἥλιον κ΄ τ. λ.5 ‘These are the passages 
in which the celebrated disciple of Irenzus deviates farthest from the 
common text and from known MSS. In considering the copiousness 
of his apocalyptic citations, and the unimportant variations which ap- 
pear in them, we cannot complain of the boldness and presumption 
with which the Apocalypse was treated in the period of the κουνὴ 
ἔκδοσις. 


HISTORY OF FHE TEXT. SECOND PERIOD. 


§ 36. 


Such a state of things, however, could not continue long. If some 
fortunate undertaking had not introduced order into the text, and put a 
limit to this licentiousness, it would in a few centuries have been involv- 
edin unparalleled confusion. This was perceived in time, and the call 
for a revision was so pressing that three men at the same period and in 
different countries applied themselves to the task. And certainly the 
benefit which they conferred upon the Christian world, was of such im- 
portance, that they do not merit the oblivion to which their noble labors 
have been consigned. 

Though the name of Origen comes forward into notice in the criticism 
of the New Testament, yet his reputation in this department of learn- 
ing was not so solitary and peculiar that he had no rivals. Hesychius 
and Lucian present themselves with him, emulous of sharing his repu- 
tation. 

It was these three men who, about the middle of the 3d century, at- 
tempted an amendment of the text, and prepared new editions or re- 
censions. They collected the best and oldest MSS. within their reach, 
in order to learn by this means, what had been recently added, altered, 


as, ee Demonst. de Christo et Antichristo, c. 47. 
2 S. Hippolyt. Demonst. de Christo et Antichristo. c. 60. 
3 Ibid. c. 37, 38. 

4 Ibid. c. 41, 42. 

5 Ibid. ¢. 60. 


116 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


or omitted in any of the MSS., and in what text these MSS. uniformly 
agreed, so that it could be adopted as a standard. ; 

The sphere of Hesychius’ labors was Egypt. In this country and 
its capital his emendation obtained public ecclesiastical sanction. The 
other circumstances of his life are entirely unknown; but probably he 
is the same whom Eusebius mentions among the Egyptian bishops who 
perished in the persecution of Diocletian.? i 

Lucian, surnamed the Martyr, famed for his talents, and particular- 
ly for his acquaintance with biblical literature, was a Presbyter of An- 
tioch in Syria. He died at Nicomedia in the persecution of Maximjn- 
us, or, as others will have it, under Maximian and Diocletian, and was 
buried at Helenopolis in Bithynia.® 

His emendation spread from Syria over Asia Minor, passed the Bos- 
phorus, and became current in Thrace and at Byzantium, subsequently 
the metropolis of the Roman empire. His reputation extended so far, 
and his recension was used in so many countries that, from the extensive 
territory over which it prevailed, it was sometimes improperly termed 
the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, and vice versd the latter sometimes called by the 
name of Lucian.* . 

The statements here collected from antiquity relate primarily only to 
the emendation of the Old Testament which Lucian and Hesychius 
undertook ; but since they also did the same with the New, as we learn 
from the same sources, it is tobe inferred that their complete biblical 
codex met with the same fate and the same reception. 

Although these two editions, and that of Origen likewise, were 
publicly approved in Africa and Asia and in the south-eastern coun- 
tries of Europe, and although, as Jerome says, the christian world di- 
vided itself into three parties and contended respecting them ;> yet the 
western christians continued steadfast in their attachment to the an- 
cient text, particularly as it respected the New Testament ; and if they, 
or rather Jerome, were somewhat indulgent to Origen’s edition, they 
were on this account the more determined opponents of the Recensions 
of Lucian and Hesychius,° accusing them of incorrect criticism, a 


1 “Alexandria et Egyptus ejus opus amplexi sunt.” Hieron. Pref. in Paralip. 
and Lib. 11. Adv. Ruffin. c. 26. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. VII. c.15. Fabric. Biblioth. Grec. L. IV. ο. 13. 
Hamb. 

3 “Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria pro- 
bat.” Hieronym. Pref. in Paralip. L. II. Adv. Ruffin. c. 26. 


4 “Tllud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et 
Cesareensis Eusebius, omnesque Grecia tractatores κοινήν id est commanem 
appellant, atque vulgatam, et que a plerisque nunc Lucianus dicitur.” Hieron. 
Ep. CVI. ad Suniam et Fretell. n. 2. 


5 “Totusque orbis hdc inter se trifarid varietate compugnat.” Adv. Ruffin. 
Di erer 

6 “De NOVO nunc loquor TESTAMENTO..... hoc certe, cum in nostro 
sermone discordat, et in diversos rivulorum tramites ducit, uno de fonte queren- 
dum. Pratermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum 
hominum asserit perversa contentio, quibus utique nec in toto veteri instru- 
mento pot septuaginta interpretes emendure quid licuit, nec in NOVO profuit 
emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat, falsa 
esse que additasunt.” Hieronym. in Epist. ad Damas. 


SECOND PERIOD. 117 


charge which they hoped to support by the versions which existed be- 
fore the recensions. And certainly, if these and especially the Latin 
versions were taken as a standard, the decision respecting the amend- 
ed text could not have been more favorable than it was. 

When therefore Pope Gelasius prepared for the first time an Index 
librorum prohibitorum, the editions of Lucian and Hesychius were in- 
cluded in the catalogue with the following harsh language: The Gos- 
pels which Lucian and Hesychius have corrupted are apocryphal.' 
Thus the western Christians were forever restricted to the xozvy &xdo- 
σις, and no Recension was ever to be allowed currency among them. 

But to return: Origen’s emendation held sway in Palestine, between 
the region occupied by Lucian and that of Hesychius.” Those who 
would limit his meritorious labors exclusively to the Old Testament for- 
get that Jerome appeals concerning the Gospels and Epistles to the 
Origenian MSS.° 

We shall succeed but ill, however, in attempting to derive informa- 
tion respecting his Recension from his own writings. He himself did 
not make much use of it; forit was probably the last of his works. 
His commentaries upon Matthew were composed in extreme old age; and 
in these, as we have seen above, he complains of the sad condition of 
the Gospels in the different MSS., and thereupon speaks with compla- 
cency of his amendment of the Old Testament. He however does 
not seem to be aware of any merit of his in regard to the New Testa- 
ment, although this was precisely the place where he would have spok- 
en of his Recension, if he had already completed it. ‘The old Latin 
translator of this work, represents Origen as saying, in speaking of his 
emendation of the Septuagint by means of obelisks and asterisks: But 
1 did not believe that I could safely undertake anything of this sort 
with respect to the copies of the New Testament.’ It is of little impor- 
tance to us whether what he here says existed in the Greek or not, 
since its import is contained in other expressions of Origen as plainly 
as it is given by the Latin translator, 

Hence the inconstancy of Origen’s biblical text, which would not 
have been of this character if it had possessed a fixed and invariable form 
from a recension; and hence he so often agrees with the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις 
in important variations, and has so many of the various readings of Codex 
D. Ifhe sometimes presents a text which is evidently purer than that 
of D., we must remember that Origen had several MSS. at hand, and 
frequently compared them with each other ; a procedure which readily 
revealed to him many corruptions and rid his quotations of them. From 


1 Decret. Pars. I. Distinct. XV. ὃ 27. “Evangelia que falsavit Lucianus a- 
pocrypha; evangelia que falsavit Hesychius apocrypha.” 

2 “Mediz inter has provincie Palwstinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene ela- 
boratos.” Hieronym. Adv. Ruffin. L. IL. c. 26. The Seholia on Mark XVI. 8. 
of the MSS. in Birch and Griesbach speak of the παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον. 
Symb. Crit. Part I. p. 101. : 

3 Hieron. Comment. in Matt. XXIV. 36. and in Ep. ad Galat. III. 1. 


4 Origenes Tom. XV. in Matt. Vol. III. De Ja Rue. p. 671. “In exemplari- 
ee Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non pu- 
avi. 


118 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


this procedure must have resulted the fact which a distinguished schol- 
ar has remarked, that he generally resembles the MS. 1.1 For if we 
take away from D its most important variations we have a text very 
similar to that of Codex L. 

We can perceive generally, that Origen in his Commentaries upon 
John, had before him a well preserved Alexandrian text. But after 
his removal from Alexandria this MS, was no longer at his service. In 
his subsequent writings we see him following a text sometimes more 
and sometimes less accurate and similar to D.? f 

Besides these three individuals noted in criticism, the name of Pie- 
rius has obtained honorable remembrance on account of his merit in re- 
lation to the New Testament. His inclination to biblical studies and 
his talents procured him the name of the younger Origen.® Yet it 
‘would rather seem that he materially assisted in Origen’s Emendation and 
in promoting its circulation, than that he undertook a Recension of his 
own ; for Jerome connects the MSS. of Pierius and Origen together in 
such a manner that one cannot help believing them to have contained 
one and the same text.‘ 

The New Testament of Pamphilus, also, founder of the library at 
Cesarea, enjoyed once nomean reputation; he frequently distributed it 
among Christians that they might become better acquainted with its 
contents.? A copy written by his own hand was long preserved in the 
library which he founded.® In the Old Testament, he was, it is known, 
merely the editor of Origen, carefully giving the Septuagint from the 
Hexapla and thus making the work of its industrious author generally 
useful.’ Origen’s other works, also, he transcribed with his own hand, 
(an extensive and tedious task,) and evinced himself always a zealous 
reverer of that scholar’s labors.8 The copies of Pamphilus are there- 
fore, all circumstances considered, only transcripts of Origen’s Recen- 
sion, which were received with especial regard, because coming from 
the hands of so illustrious a person. 


1 Griesbach Symb. Crit. Tom. 1. p. 123—127. 

2 In the opinion of a Reviewer (Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1822, 2d 
Heft. p. 281. seq.) it was incumbent on me in a history of the text to investigate 
Origen’s emendation in the works of Eusebius. I employed much time in com- 
paring the citations of this father, until I became at last convinced that, as is of- 
ten the case with voluminous writers, he quoted from memory and does not a- 
gree with himself. My discovery was almost precisely what is admitted by the 
reviewer himself from his own observation, only one page before he censures 
me for not collating Eusebius (p. 280.) Eusebius, he says, in the same passages 
of the Gospels, occurring frequently as many as four times, presents sometimes 
one and sometimes another reading. 

3 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. VII. c. 29. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. v. Pierius. 


4 Hieron. Comm. in Matt. XXIV. 36. “In quibusdam codicibus additum est 
neque filzus,cum in Grecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii codicibus hoc non 
habeatur adscriptum.” 


5 Hieron. De Script. Eccles. and L. II. Adv. Ruffin. c. 9. ‘Unde et _multos 
codices prparabat, ut, cum necessitas poposcisset, volentibus largiretur.’ 


Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 32. 
6 Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coislin. p. 262. 


7 Eichhorn Einleit. in das. A. T. Th. I. Cap. III. δ. 172. Hieron. L. H. Adv. 
Ruffin. c. 27. 


8 Euseb. H. E. L. VII. c. 32. Hieron. Seript. Eccl. V. Pamphilus. 


SECOND PERIOD. 119 
" 

Or is it rather probable that Origen’s emendation, as it was made in 
the last days of hislife, was not edited by himself, but first saw the 
light through Pierius, and was circulated still more widely by Pamphil- 
us? Or did some person publish it without Origen’s critical marks, 
striking out what he had marked with an obelisk as suspicious, and ad- 
mitting what he had acknowledged by an asterisk as genuine. 

Lastly, in the fourth century a recension of the Old ‘Testament was 
prepared by Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria; perhaps, howev- 
er, it was only a translation. Whatever it was, Jerome characterises it 
‘as a clumsy production, undertaken with good intentions but with small 
ability! Were we to extend this critcism to his labors on the New 
Testament, we should not expect any thing remarkable; yet a Scholion 
ina Parisian MS., on John 7: 53 to 8: 12, seems to refer to the copies of 
Apollinaris.2_ It may however be understood as referring to his poetical 
harmony of the Gospels. 


THE RECENSION OF HESYCHIUS. 


§ 87. 


Some preparation has now been made to enter into the overgrown 
field of critical documents, to examine them one by one, estimate their 
value, and arrange them in classes—a vast undertaking, if proposed 
without limitation. It is no longer even possible to accomplish it entire- 
ly. Many have been collated only in particular passages, many only in 
‘part, and. many not with due care; some probably are not worthy of 
any pains. Hence we must select only such documents as are best ex- 
ecuted and demand peculiar attention from their antiquity and correct- 
ness, in order to pronounce decisively as to their character. The rest 
may follow in the order of time or of merit. 

Let us inquire first for the Egyptian recension which, for several rea- 
sons, is most easily discovered. As this recension maintained ecclesi- 
astical authority in Alexandria and Egypt, it must be exhibited in the 
works of the fathers of that country. These, however, follow the text 
which has come down to us in the MSS. BC and L.  B is the celebra- 
ted Vatican, N. 1209; C isthe MS. N. 9 in the royal library of France, 
called also that of Ephraem Syrus ; Lis in the same library, marked 
N. 62. We shall describe each more fully in its proper place. 

The quotations of the celebrated Athanasius, in those works which 
are ascribed to him by universal consent, in general exhibit this text ; 
as also the writings of the monks Marens and Marcarius, of Cosmas 
Indicopleustes, and Cyril archbishop of Alexandria. I have satisfied 
myself of this by actual collation ; but I cannot here present the evi- 


1 Lib. Il. Adv. Ruf. e. 33. “ Qui bono quidem studio, sed non secundum 


scientiam de omnibus translationibus in unum vestimentum pannos assuere 
conatus est.” 


2 Τὰ ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγραφοῖς οὐ κεῖνται, 0008 4Τπολιναρίῳ ἐν τοῖς ἀρ-- 
“Ree oda. κεῖνται. Richard Simon. Hist. Crit. du texte du Nouv. Test. c. XLT. 
Ρ. ϊ 


sf ss 
120 ISTOR) ‘OF THE TEXT. 


In respect to the last, however, I 


dence obtained by tedious 
was disfigured here and ‘there by for- 


must remark that his bibli 
eign additions and interpolations. 

“But, without making use of the evidence to which I have just appeal- 
ed, this i is clearly deducible from the origin of which the text of these 
MSS. bears infallible marks ; for if it be admitted, as I have already 
shown, that D exhibits most nearly the κοινὴ xd0Gts of Alexandria 
and Egy pt, we can be in no doubt respecting the native country of these 
three MSS. or rather of their text. They are clearly only corrected 
copies of this κοινὴ ἐκδοσις. 

The Coptic version was also made from MSS. of the same country ; 
and it confessedly accompanies the fine monuments which we have 
been considering as belonging to the Egyptian recension. 

Thus they really contain the recension of Hesychius, and by compar- 
ing it with the xovvy éxdooes from which they were derived we may 
discover the plan of procedure which the critic pursued. First, we see 
that he removed the important interpolations which had crept in from 
harmonies, apocryphal books, or parallel passages in the Old and New 
Testament, and restored to each of the Evangelists his own property, 
which was before in many cases confounded with that of others. He 
besides rejected numerous glosses and Scholia, and expunged clauses 
introduced from the Lectionaria, and likewise restored some lost ones. 
These and many like errors which we have remarked in the xoevy &x- 
doors he diligently endeavored to remedy. 

Yet he has not been able to destroy a multitude of minute but very 
evident traces of the copies upon which he labored ; there remains still, 
notwithstanding his amendments, much which does not seem to have 
merited his forbear ance, partly coming from the Lectionaria, and part- | 
ly from parallel passages. He might too, perhaps, have supplied many 
omissions which we find in his recension, and have more frequently re- 
moved glosses which we now perceive in it, [have only said that this 
seems to be the case; for, in order to make this charge with more con- _ 
fidence, we should be accurately acquainted in detail with the whole 
history of the text. 

We, however, meet with readings in it which we seek in vain in D; 
and as he has adopted eae they must have been supported by other 
MSS. Of this kind is, e. g. in Matt. 27: 49, the addition after σώσων 
αὐτὸν in BCL and the ‘Coptic version : ἄλλὸς λαβὼν λόγχην, ἔνυξεν 
αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ wal aie; or the transposition 
in Mark 10: 34, καὶ ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτῷ, καὶ μαστιγώσουσιν αὐτόν" or 
in Luke 6: 48, instead of ἔϑηχε ϑεμέλ. . . . métQav—the clause: δεὰ 
τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσϑαι αὐτὴν" as also Mark 10: 49, where instead of 
εἶπεν αὐτὸν φωνηϑῆναι, there occurs in BCL and the Coptic version : 
εἶπεν φωνήσατε αὐτόν, which two last readings Thomas of Charkel 
found in his ancient Alexandrian MS. 

We must notice particularly a principle of criticism which this man 
derived from profane literature and unfortunately applied to the New 
Testament. He made it a rule, it would appear, to prefer a reading 
which was elegant and pure, as respected Greek idiom, to a difficult 
Jewish-Greek one, in cases where he found the latter. E. g. Mark 12: 
21, for ἀπέϑανεν, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε σπέρμα, he chose : ἀπέϑανεν 


: “ 
7 « af “re 


SECOND pny hy 191 


an καταλιπὼν σπέρμα, which is a mor elegant expression. Mark 10: 
51, in BCL, τέ σοι ϑέλεις ποιήσω" and John 16: 22, νῦν μὲν λύπην 
ἔχετε. In Luke 5: 36, the phraseology has received a better turn : ὅτι 
οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει. εν and Luke 
21: 86, is expressed less according to Jewish idiom: ἵνα KATLOYVONTE 
ἐκφυγεῖν" so 23: 42, ὅταν ehieng. εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου" 80. 23: 40, 
ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ ἔφη, ‘&e. &e. 

In the Acts we are deserted by one of these MSS. viz. Codex L, 
which contains only the Gospels; but its place is supplied by another, 
viz. A or Alex. Mus. Britan.; so that we have ABC to exhibit to us 
Hesychius’ edition of this book. 'To these may be added a MS. which 
Euthalius, an Alexandrian deacon, examined and divided stichometri- 
cally, or more correctly a transcript of that copy. ‘This MS. is desig- 
nated by Wetstein and Griesbach as Acts N. 40, and is taken from 
Zacagni’s Monumentis Ineditis. Codex 1, or Mosc. S. Μ᾽ Yynod. ἢ. 
CCCLXXX. also holds an important rank here : it contains the whole 
New Testament according to another recension, and in the Acts alone 
is written according to an Alexandrian copy; as also Cod. Urbino- Va- 
tican. n. 367 in Birch. It appears to me, that Cod. Colleg. Nov. Oxon. 
in Mill. Nov. Z, in Wetstein and Griesbach 36, may likewise be class- 
ed here. 

If we bring in array before us the different kinds of errors which the 
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις admitted in this book particularly, and then compare with 
them the text of these MSS. we can judge what the emendator avoided 
in this book and what he has done which is of importance. By sucha 


_ comparison we shall be able to see how, from the corrupt text of MSS. 


Me; 


DE and those like them, was deduced the text of the MSS. ABC and 
their companions, which is more accurate and more free from foreign 
excrescences. 
The MSS. ABC, the Euthalian MS. 40, and Birch’s Urbino- Vat. 
367, present Hesychius’ emendation of the Catholic Epistles likewise. 
t Codex 1 forsakes us here and passes over to its own recension. 


Bu 
“- In the Epistles of the Apostle Paul likewise, ABC are the chief mon- 


uments of the Hesychian text. With them the Euthalian Codex also 
agrees, which in the Pauline Epistles is marked in Wetstein and Gries- 
bach Ν. 46. The Urbino-Vat. 367 is here unfaithful and fluctuates 
between two texts; in its stead we add another, viz. Colbert. 2844, now 
N. 14, which was examined de novo by Griesbach and after him again 
collated by Begtrupp, whose extracts Birch has published at the end of 
his collection of various readings in the Apocalypse. In Wetstein and 
Griesbach it bears the mark 17. 

We shall easily be convinced that the revised text was formed from 
MSS. which bore a great resemblance to the MSS. DE and FG. This 
will be evident hereafter, when we extract some specimens from the 
several recensions and compare them together. 

We have the Apocalypse according to the Hesychian Recension in 
the MSS. AC. Codex B or Vatican. 1909 does not reach so far; and 
the MS. which in the Apocalypse bears the mark B does not belong 
here. But another Vatican MS. with the number 579, collated by 
Birch, although as is often the case with modern MSS. it contains ma- 
ny heterogeneous ne plainly ranks with AC. To these Vindob. 

16 


" 


122 5 BIstéRy OF THE TEXT. 
a 


Caes. in Supplem. Kollarii N. XXVI. is strikingly similar, though it 
bears marks of a later date. It has been collated by Professor Alter. 
To these might be added two other MSS. in the same library, if their 
character were not rendered doubtful by the numerous chances and 
changes to which they have been exposed. 

Lastly, the Apocalypse which appears at the end of the Euthalian 
Codex, so often cited, and which is designated by Mill. as Petav. 3, by 
Wetstein and Griesbach Apoc. 12, is far from being sufficiently known. 
But judging from the specimens given by Birch in his collection of va- 
rious readings in the Apocalypse, and from the other citations of Mill, 

‘it exhibits, though not without some recent alterations, the text of the 
copies AC, 


LUCIAN’S RECENSION. 


§ 38. 


Another recension of the Gospels, (for we must speak first of these,) 
is contained in the MSS. EFGHSV and 64. All these are written in 
large letters, in the uncial character. The first is a very fine MS. in 
the library at Basle Num. B. VI.21; the next, F, once belonged to Jo- 
hann Borcel, the Dutch ambassador at the English court. The MSS. 
of the Gospels G and H were brought from the East by Erasmus Seidel, 
and afterwards came into the possession of John Christopher Wolf of 
Hamburg : the first of them is now in the British Museum, Harleian. 
5684. The MS. § is in the Vatican Library, ἢ. 354, collated by 
Birch; V is in the library of the Holy Synod-at Moscow ; it is a beau- 
tiful MS., respecting which Matthei first gave us correct information. 
The MSS. ὃ and ἡ, also, were collated by him; they are two valuable 
Evangeliaria, the first of which is in the same library, n. XLIII.; and 
the other is in the library of the Holy Synod, n. XII. ‘ 

If we should here mention the more modern MSS. which are written 
in cursive characters, the list would be very much augmented. A great 
part of those which Matthzi collated at Moscow, most of those in 
Birch and Alter and in Mill and Wetstein, are of this class. A subdi- 
vision however might here be made; for it is probable that after this 
recension had suffered somewhat in the course of time, it was examin- 
ed and revised by some person. But this incidental remark is an hypo- 
thesis, the reasons of which I cannot here unfold without tedious par- 
ticularity. 

The basis of this recension is the xovvy ἔκδοσις as it existed in Sy- 
ria. If this position be correct, as it will soon be found to be, we are 
no longer in doubt respecting its native country or its author. It must 
have originated in Syria, and consequently must be the recension of 
Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch, which extended itself from Syria to 
Constantinople and Thrace. We recognize it in the Constantinopoli- 
tan fathers; e. σ. in Theophylact, though we have not his text at pres- 
ent in a state of perfect purity. 

We have already selected above some important readings, character- 


SECOND PERIOD. 123 
istic of the most ancient Syrian text, which are not found in Egyptian 
MSS. before or after Hesychius, nor in the versions of that country. 
All of these, the number of which we might further increase, we meet 
with in the large class of MSS., which as we have said present Lucian’s 
Emendation. Matt. 6: 19, ὅτι σοὺ ἔστιν ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ ἡ δύναμις, 
καὶ ἡ δόξα, εἰς τους αἰῶνας, FGSV, bh; 3 the MSS. EH. are here. defec- 
tive.—Matt. 20: 22, μέλλω πίνειν---καὶ TO βάπτισμα, ὃ ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζο- 
μαι, βαπτεισϑῆναι, and ν. 23, καὶ τὸ Gant. 0 éyw Pant. . βαπτισ- 
ϑήσεσϑε, EHSV. Here indeed FG and bh are defective, but their tes- 
timony could easily be supplied by some dozen others. Mark 6: 11, 
εἰς μαρτ. αὐτοῖς---αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀνεκτότερον ἔσταν Σοδόμοις ἢ 
Τομοόῤῥοις ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως, ἢ, τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ, EFGHSV, bh. --- 
Mark 13: 14, τῆς ἐρημώσεως--τὸ δηϑὲν ὑπὸ Aavina τοῦ πρυφήτου, 
EFGHSV, bh. —Luke 4: 18, ἀπέσταλκέ με---ἰάσασϑαι, τοὺς συντὲ- 
τριμμένους τὴν zaodier—Luke 10: 22 , Hoek στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαϑη- 
τὰς εἶπε. John 1: 27, ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος---ὃς ἐμπροσϑέν μου 
γέγονεν. John 5: 10, οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι---καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποχτεῖναι. 
John 6: 22, εἰ μὴ ἕν---ἐκεῖνο εἰς 0 ἀνέβησαν οἱ μαϑηταὶ αὐτοῦ. Also 
John 6: 69, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοὺ ζῶντος. Though here and there in 
these passages one of the witnesses fails us, as 6. g. Κ᾿, which has not 
been collated in John, and bf which are silent in John 5: 16 and 6: 22, 
as is the case with h also in John 1: 27, we may overlook the circum- 
stance without scruple ; for a host of other MSS. of this family would 
convince us, that these peculiar readings of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις in Syria 
belong also to this recension. 

The origin of this text from the copies of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις as it was 
read in Syria, can be made clear in no way better than by selecting 
some suitable passage from the Gospels and comparing it with the Pes- 
chito. It cannot but be acceptable to see at one view the two recen- 
sions of Lucian and Hesychius, and further to observe the similarity of 
the latter to Codex D, and to perceive with no trouble how many of its 
peculiarities are retained in the recension which sprung from it and 
from MSS. like it. We select for this purpose the fourth chapter of 


Mark. 
HESYCHIUS. LUCIANUS. 
1. συνάγεται BCL. συνήχϑη 
ὕχλος πλεῖστος BCL. ὄχλος πολύς 
εἴς τὸ πλοῖον ἐμβάντα BCLD. { a prin ne inh ai 
γῆς ἦσαν Α BCL. γῆς ἣν Syr. 
6. καὶ ὅτε ἀνέτειλεν ὃ ἥλιος BCLD. Syr. ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος 
8. ἄλλα ἔπεσ... .. BCL. Glo tmes.... Syr. 
αὐξανόμενον BCLD. αὐξάνοντα 
10. καὶ ὅτε BCLD. ὅτι δὲ Syr. 
ἠρώτων BCL. ἠρώτησαν 
tas παραβολάς BCL. τὴν παραβολήν Syr. 
11, ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται B L. Copt. { ὑμῖν. eaten ΛῈΣ τὸ 
μυστήριον. αἶντ. 
12. ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς BCL. ΕΠ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἅμαρ- 


τήματὰ Syr. 


124 


HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


HESYCHIUS. © LUCIANUS. 
15. εὐθύς BCL. εὐϑέως 
i Sy SL tg ; ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὑτῶν 
ἐν αὐτοῖς (εἰς αὐτούς, 5.) CL. Syr. 
16, εὐθύς BCL. εὐθέως 
18, καὶ ἄλλοι εἰσίν BCL. καὶ οὗτοὐ εἶσιν Syr. 
, ἀκοΐσαντες BCLD. ἀκούοντες 
ο΄ 10. τοῦ αἰῶγος BCLD. τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου Syr. 
τς 960, καὶ ἐκεῖνοί εἰσιν BCL. καὶ οὗτοί εἰσιν Syr. 
22. ἐὰν μή BCL. ὃ ἐὰν μή 
/ | 24. ὑμῖν καὶ προστεϑήσεται ὑμῖν ποι, i hin fone ti 
. 38. αὐτομάτη ἣ γῆ BCL. αὐτομάτη yoo γὴ Syr. 
80. πῶς ὁμοίως. BCL. τίνι ὁμοίως. - « « 
31. μικρότερον BOLD. μικρότερος 
32, ΡΥ ( μείξζον) πάντων τῶν ᾿ ΕΓ { πάντων τῶν λαχάνων μεί-- 
ἀχάνων ζων 
94, τοῖς ἰδίοις μαϑηταῖς BCL. τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ Syr. 
96, καὶ ἄλλα Β τ. Copt. Syr. καὶ ἄλλα δὲ 
πλοῖα ΒΟ D. πλοιάρια 
97. ἢδε γεμίζεσϑαι τὸ πλοῖον BCLD. αὐτὸ ἤδε Kapaa Syr. 
38. ἐν τῇ πρύμ.. . . BCLD. Syr. éni τῇ᾽ πρύμ. 
40. τί δειλοί ἐστε οὕτω B L.Copt. p. ; δειλοί haga ἄκος 
οὐκ. yr 


Not to add further examples, we shall find the two recensions to 
compare throughout in this manner. The variations found in them 
are only errors of individual MSS. which, if we pay too much attention 
to them, will often obscure our apprehension of the two recensions. It 
is to be "expected, however, that a considerable number of MSS. should 
be uniformly alike throughout each recension, and we shall admit in 
such a case, (which will soon present itself to our notice,) that we have 
not before us the lawless career of erroneous and accidental readings. 

The other point which we wished to evince by the presentation of 
these specimens, viz. the origin of this recension from the xovv7 éx00- 
σις as it cireulated in Syria, may have been made evident from our col- 
lation of the Peschito, which was composed before Lucian’s time and 
hence from some more ancient copy. Now, in comparing his recension ἡ 
with this old copy, we can readily form an idea of his mode of proce- 
dure. We shall perceive that he removed whatever had been transferred 
from one Evangelist into others, (Matt. 22: 37. 28: 18. Mark 8: 29. 
Luke 9: 39. 24: 36), whatever had crept in by means of the church- 
lessons, (Matt. 20: 17. Luke 19: 26), explanatory additions, amplifica- 
tions and circumlocutions, (Matt. 21: 34. 6: 32. 14: 6. Mark 6: 31. 
9: 2. Luke 9: 29. John 7: 39), transpositions, (Matt. 7: 30. Mark 6: 
51), and other extraneous matter of the same description. 

He, however, admitted readings which did not exist in the copy: from 
which the Peschito was made; e. g. Matt. 25: 13, τὴν -ὥραν--ἔν ἦ 0 
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου ἔρχεται. John 8: 59, ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ---καὶ προῆγεν 


SECOND PERIOD. 125 


οὕτως, John 11: 41, τὸν λίϑον--οὗ ἦν ὁ. τεϑηκὼς κείμενος ; which 
consequently must have been sustained by a majority of his MSS. 

This recension, as respects the Acts of the Apostles, appears in the 
Moscow MSS. f or S. Synod. CCCXX XIII, al (8. Synod. XLV), 
ὁ (5. Synod. IV. Praxapost.), d (5. Synod. CCCXXAXIV), also c 
(5. Synod. CCCLIV), and m (S. Synod. CCCXXVIID), which 
have all been collated by Matthaei; also in Codex ἦν, belonging to that 
scholar. Among these, f seems to be the best copy, while c and m have 
suffered most by unseasonable corrections. With these agrees another 
very good MS., Alexandrino-Vatic. 29 in Birch, as also the MSS. in 
the royal library, Lambec. XXXV. or Nessel CCXXI. and Lambec. 
XXXVII. or Nessel CCCXIII. All these have a perfectly decided char- 
acter. They do not, however, stand alone; but their class is very nu- 
merous, and MS. belonging to it are found in other collections. Their 
text however is not exactly pure, or else extracts have frequently been 
made from them without the requisite accuracy. 

In respect to the Acts of the Apostles in this recension, we have par- 
ticularly to remark that it does not agree so invariably as the other bib- 
lical books with the readings of the Syriac text. Yet it does not differ 
so much that all the traces of its relationship are lost. Among the 
readings peculiar to this recension there are none of very great extent. 
The longest is in Acts 26: 30, where the Egyptian Recension says mere- 
ly, ἀνέστη ὁ βασιλεύς AB, 40, 367, 1. Copt.: it is expressed thus in this 
recension: εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ ἀνέστη ὁ aod... . f, al, ὃ, d, k, c, m, 
Alex. Vat. 29, Lambec. XXXV.and Lambec. XX XVII. But the most 
remarkable is in Acts 90: 28, where some MSS. read κυρίου, others 
χριστοῦ and also ϑεοῦ, and this recension connects the two readings: 
τὴν ἐχκλησίαν κυρίου καὶ ϑεοῦ, f, al, b,d,k, c,m, Alex. Vat. 29, 
Lambec. XXXV. and Lambec. XX XVII. 

We will here, as in the Gospels, present parallel with each other pas- 
sages from the two recensions, and we shall select for this purpose Acts 
24 and 25. Of the MSS. of the Egyptian Recension which we have 
before named C is sometimes defective, and of their xowvy ἔκδοσις 
likewise D is defective in both chapters. But we have another celebra- 
ted copy of it in the Acts, viz. the Laudian. MS. E, which we collate 
here with the rest. 


ACTS XXIV. 
HESYCHIUS. LUCIANUS. 
1. μετὰ πρεσβυτέρων τινῶν aw. 40. 367. LE. μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Syr. 
5. στάσεις as. 40, 867. Le. στάσιν Syr. 
9, συνεπέϑεντο AB. 40. 867. LE. συνέϑεντο 
10. χριτὴν δίκαιον Β. 40. 367. 1. κριτήν Syr. 
εὐθύμως F AB. 40. 367. 1. εὐϑυμότερον 
11. ἡμέραι δώδεκα ag. 40. 1. ἡμέρας δεκαδύο 
εἰς “Ιερουσαλήμ a. 40. 867.1.5'γν. ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ 
19, ἐπίστασιν as. 40. 867. ΒΕ. ἐπισύστασιν 
18. δύνανταί σοι as. 40. 867. 1. Ε. δύνανται Syr. 


15, μέλλ. ἔσεσϑαι asc. 40. yeah. ἔσεσϑαι γεχρῶν Syr. 


126 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


-HESYCHIUS. νὰ LUCIANUS. 
16. ἐν τούτῳ καὶ apc. 40. 367. Le. ἐν τούτῳ δέ Syr. 
18. ἐν αἷς sig. . Asc. 40. 367. 1. E. ἐν οἷς sug. . 
22. ἀνεβάλετο ΠΝ αὐτοὺς ὃ es ἀκούσας δὲτο ταῦτα, ἀνεβαάλε-- 
DME anc. 40 Oa to δὲ αὐτοὺς ὃ Φηλιξ Syr. 
. em 
23. τηρεῖσϑαν αὐτόν ABc. 40, 367. 1. Ε. Sanaa τὸν ar »- 
ὑπηρετεῖν Ὁ ΑΘ ΒΟ  Υ ΔΕ ὁ ὅπη ετεῖν ἢ προσέρχεσϑαι 
"Q Syr. TENG ἢ προσέρχ 
25. ἔμφοβος ΑΒ0. 40. 867. 1. ἔσεσϑαι, ἔμφοβος 
96. Παύλου διό a c.40. 867. |. £. (Παύλου, ὅπως λύσῃ αὐτόν’ 
a ΒΞ Min διό 
Bis χάριτα asc. 40. χάριτας 
χάριν' 867. 1. 
ACTS XXV. 
5. ἀνδρὶ ἄτοπον AB. 40. 867. 1.Ε. ἀνδρὲ τούτῳ Syr. - 
6. οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα ig ci al te ᾿ σλείους 1) δέκα 
7. περίεστησαν αὐτόν AB. 367. αὐτῷ, 40.1. περιέστησαν» 
καταφέροντες 480. 40. 367, |. Ε. φέροντες 


κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου omitted.a c. 40. 367. Syr. κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου 


Sadie ἐέσυλον σπολοχους ᾿ anc. 40. 367. Syr. ἀπολογουμένου αὐτοῦ 


μένου 
9. χρυϑῆναν ΑΒ. 40. 367. 1. κρίνεσθαι 

11. εἰ μὲν οὖν ABC, le.Syr. εἰ μὲν γάρ 

15. καταδίκην age. 40, 367. 1. δίκην 2 di 

16. eeogiinay πρὶν 480. 40. E { See ote aa 

18. é ἔφερον, ὧν a c.40, 867. 1. κε. ἐπέφερον, ὧν 
ὕπεν. ἐγὰ πονηράν OF 480. 40. 367. 1. Ε-. ) ς οἷν 

πονηρῶν ; “Syr. ape eC 
phe 480. 40. 367, 1. 5. aie 

20. περὶ τούτων | Syr. ¢ περὲ τούτου 

21. ἀναπέμψω ABC. 40, 867. 1. Ε. πέμψῳ 

23. κατ᾽ ἐξοχ. τ. πόλ. ΑΒο. 40. ]. Syr. κατ᾽ ἐξοχ. οὖσι τῆς πόλ. 

25. κατελαβόμην AaB. 40. 367. 1. καταλαβόμενος 
αὐτοῦ δὲ aBc. 40. 367. 1. Ε. καὶ αὐτοῦ δὲ Syr. 
πέμπειν , age. 40. 367. πέμπειν αὐτόν 

26. τὶ γράψω ΑΒ. 1. Syr. τί γράψαι 


In the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, the principal MS. of the text 
of Lucian is a very beautiful one written in uncial characters, (accom- 
panied with Scholia in the cursive character,) which bears the number 
XCVIII in the library of the Holy Synod and is designated G by Mat- 
thei. As we have already in Paul’s Epistles a Codex G we will desig- 
nate this by the small letter g. After this comes f, then klmcd and the 
two πραξαποόστολου a3 and ὁ. “All except g have been noticed before 


SECOND PERIOD. 127 


in speaking of the Acts; where, however, Codex 7 or S. Synod 
CCCLX XX; was on the side of the Hesychian text. 

Besides these Matthei found a MS. of Paul in particular in the li- 
brary of the Holy Synod n. XCIX. He cites its readings under the 
letter n. 

Moreover, the Epistles of Paul and the Catholic Epistles according 
to this recension are contained in Alexandrino Vat. 29, Pio-Vat. 50. 

τ collated in Birch, and Lambec. XXVIII, Lambec. XXXVIL, Lambec. 
XXXV, Lambec. Lor Nessel. XXXIII; all in the Royal library at Vien- 
na and collated by Alter. The text of Paul however in these MSS., 
is preserved in a better and purer state than that of the Catholic Epistles. 

The similarity to the Syriac version, which appears less striking in 
the Acts of the Apostles, and in the 25th chapter is scarcely observable, 
is here exhibited strongly ; yet, as is easily conceived, we must except 
from this remark such of the Catholic Epistles as did not form part of 
the original contents of the Peschito, and were not added till a later 
period. 

The Epistles of Paul contain important peculiar readings, of which 
we will give one or two examples. In Rom. 8: 1, Lucian’s MSS. add 
after, ἐν “Χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ the words: μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ 
κατὰ πνεῦμα, o. f.k.l. m.n.c. αϑ. ὁ. Alexandrine Vat.'29, Pio- Vat. 50, 
Lambec. 1, XXVIII, XXXV, XXXVII, which is read in very few 
Alexandrian MSS. Of this addition the Peschito has omy a part, as 
far as ἀλλά. So, too, the clauses in Rom. 11: 6, εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἐργων, οὐκ- 
ἔτι ἐστί χάρις, ἐπεὶ τὸ EQYOY οὐκέτι ἐστὶ ἔργον, which appears in all 
the MSS. quoted before (together with Codex d which did not then 
agree with the others,) and the old Syriac version, is very seldom found 
in Hesychian copies. In the Ist Epistle to the Corinthians, 6: 20, 
there occurs after the words σώματι ὑμῶν the clause; καὶ ἕν τῷ 
πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἅτινα ἐστι θεοῦ, which is admitted only by Lu- 
cian’s MSS. (all the MSS. above mentioned,) and the Syriac version. 
This happens also in the Catholic Epistles, 1 “John ὅ: 19, ταῦτα ἔγραψα 
ὑμῖν--ταῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ: in which, 
contrary to the Alexandrian MSS., all the MSS. coincide, the Syriac 
version alone dissenting. 
|. That we may again compare the two Recensions with each other 
and remark the origin of one as to Paul’s Epistles from the MSS. DEFG, 
and of the other from the text exhibited in the Peschito, we will select 
readings from the 9th and 10th chapters of the Ist Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, and from J ude, as anexample of the Catholic Epistles. 


NINTH CHAPTER. 
HESYCHIUS. LUCIANUS. 


1. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύϑερος, a ΑΒ. Copt. 17. 46. ( οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, οὖκ εἰ-- 
εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος Syr. μὲ ἐλεύϑερος 
ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καρποῦ 
Syr. 
8, ἢ καὶ ὃ νόμος ταῦτα ov ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὃ νόμος ταῦτα 
λέγει Ἄβαι 46. pe. ᾿ λέγει Syr. 


1 2 - 
7. τὸν καρπὸν αὑτοῦ asc. 17. 46. DEFG. 


128 "HISTORY OF THE TEXT. ἢ yy 
HESYCHIUS. “ LUCIANUS. 
10. ὀφείλει én’ ἐλπίδι ABC. ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ὀφείλει Syr. 


πίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν 
᾽ ἐλπίδι 


én’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν! ABC. 


‘12. ὑμῶν (τῆς) ἐξουσίας Asc. 46. DFG. ἐξουσίας ὑμῶν. 

18. παρεδρεύοντες apo. 17. 46. DEFG. ἘΝῚ Sethe a 
16. καὺ γάρ μοι ͵ ape. 17. 46. ῬΕξα. οὐαὶ δέ μου Syr. 
18, εὐαγγέλιον, εἰς τό ΑΒο. 17. 46. Ὁ. ᾿ ἐμαὶ i ey τοῦ Χριστο 


« c c 4 , 1 »” 
20. ὡς ὑπονόμον, μὴ wy 
ι a 
αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον 
~ > , 
21. ϑεοῦ, ἀλλ ἔννομος 


, asc. 17.46. nEFG. ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον 


: 480. 17.46. perc. ϑεῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος Χριστῷ 


Χριστοῦ 
(23. πάντα δὲ ποιῶ ape. 17. 46. pEFe. τοῦτο δὲ ποιῶ Syr. 
TENTH CHAPTER. 
1. οὐ ϑέλω γάρ ape. 17. 46.pEFG. ov ϑέλω δὲ Syr. 
2. ἐβαττίσϑησαν a 6. 17. 46. ῬΕΕα. ἐβαπτίσαντο 
9. τινὲς αὐτῶν ABC. 46. DFG. καίέτιγες αὑτῶν Syr. 
10. νὰ ; Apc. 17. 46. pEFG. vp Ot 
. Syr. 
11. τυπικῶς ovveB. .. ΑΒο. 17. 46. F. τύποι συνέβ.... Syr. 
4.0... Ὄ δῷ εἰδωλόϑυτον esl λβο, 17. 46, .... εἴδωλον . - .. εἰδωλό-- 
. εἴδωλον..... ς Sutoy.... Syr. 
20. ϑύουσι bis. ΑΒΟ. 17. 46. perc. ϑύει bis. 
23. πάντα ἔξεστιν bis. asc. 17. 46. pEFe. πάντα μοι ἕξεστιν bis. Syr. 
24. τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου ΑΒΟ. 17. ῬΈΡα. τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἕκαστος Syr. 


28. τὴν συνείδησιν  Copt. ; Syr ρίου 7 γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήφω- 


ἐμ ΟΣ τὴν συνείδησιν τοῦ γὰρ χυ-- 
μα αὐτῆς 


΄ 


The contrast between the two Recensions might be presented in ma- 
ny more readings if we could call to our aid a Jarger number of accu- 
rately collated MSS. of the Egyptian text in order, when any of them 
fail us, to determine from the rest what is the peculiar reading of the 
Recension. Most probably the following readings ate not errors in 
individual MSS., but belong to the Egyptian text ; this i is not however, 
sufficiently well ascertained : 1 Cor. 9: 8, αὕτη ἐστί---ἐστὶν αὕτη ΑΒ. 
46; v. 12, ἐ γκοπήν TLVA—TLVO. ἐγκοπήν AB; v. 15, ta τις κεν ὥσῃη--- 
οὐδεὶς HEVOOEL, AB. 17, and ov κέχρημαι ovdent AB. 17; X. 16, x0l- 
νωνία ἐστὶ (τοῦ) αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ΑΒ: ν. 32, καὶ *Tovdaiorg yi- 
veods AB. 


1 Codex 46 reads ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδος αὐτοῖ in the second clause. 


oF. 
ζ 


εν 
SECOND PERIOD. ᾿ 129 


HESYCHIU LUCIANUS. 

1. ἡγαπημένοις ΑΒ. 867. ἡγιασμένοις 

3. κοινῆς ἡμῶν. σωτὴρ... Οορι. a. 367. κοιγῆς σωτηρ. .. 

he δεσπότην καὶ κύριον aBc. 867. δεσπότην ϑεὸν καὶ κύριον 
5. ἅπαξ πάντα asc. 867. ἅπαξ τοῦτο 

15 ABC. 867. ἀσεβεῖς αὐτῶν 

ν ἐσχάτου. (τοῦ) χφόνου ABC. 867. ἐν ἐσχατῷ χρύνῳ 


25. μόνῳ ϑεῷ Bc. 40. 867. μόνῳ σοφῷ ϑεῷ 
σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡ-- 
ὧν 
δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη ΑΒ. 867. δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη 
ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς (τοῦ) ὶ apc. 40. 367 ἐξουσία καὶ γῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας 
αἰῶνος τοῦς αἰῶνας 


Bc, 40, 867. σωτῆρι ἡμῶν 


Beetopot Ὥρα ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει én- 
τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ἡμῶν πίσ-- 367 a ie μ 
Ag οἰκοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς 

22. καὶ ods μὲν ἐλέγχετε δια- ὶ age. 40. 367. ; καὶ ovg μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινό-- 
«ἀρινομένους μένοι 

23. ots δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς die) eens ΠΡ igs je 

ῦ 

ἁρπάζοντες (ovg δὲ ἐλε-- § apc. 40. 807. ous δὲ ἐν φὸβ ῳ σώζετε ἐκ (τοῦ) 
Ξ hae πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες 
ἅτε) (ἐλεεῖτε) ἐν φόβῳ 


Codex 40, at its commencement, is unfaithful to its Recension, in 
some minute readings, as I am satisfied from a comparison of the Beec- 
lerian edition from which Zacagni made his extracts; but if we take 

only the readings in which the Egyptian MSS. cited are all agreed, we 
shall observe enough variations in so small a compass to show the con- 
stant discrepancies between these two recensions. 

The Apocalypse of this recension is found in the Moscow MSS. r 
kplando. Of the first we know neither the situation nor number ;* 
we have noticed & and / before; p is S. Synod. CCVI; ὁ is S. Synod, 
LXVII, with the Scholia of Andreas. ‘These are not all equally valu- 
able, and in general it is very difficult to find among modern MSS. any 
containing the pure and uncorrupted text of this book ; and it is im- 
possible to find so ancient and valuable documents as A and C are in 
regard to the Apocalyptic text of Hesychius. Codex o has suffered 
most of them all. . 

A very good MS., however, of this recension is Harleian 5613, col- 
lated by Griesbach and designated in his edition by the number 29. 
Also Lampbec. I, or Nessel. XXIII, in Alter, and Alexandrino- Vat. 68, 
Vatican. 1160, Pio-Vat. 50 are among the valuable copies. Andreas, 
bishop of Cappadocia, followed this text in his commentaries; yet not 
so exclusively that he did not also make use of other MSS. 

MS. B or Basilianorum in Urbe N. CV, written in uncial characters 


1 It is noticed very briefly at the end of the Epistle to the Romans in Mat- 
thei’s edition, p. 276. . 
17 


130 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 
and collated by Wetstein, alternates in its readings between this and the - 
Hesychian Recension. It has also many peculiar readings not met 
with in either, and appears to me to belong to a peculiar récension, to 
which Wetstein’s Ν. 9 or Huntingtonianus 1, and Wetstein N. 14 or 
the Leicester ΜδροΝ also belong. However, without pursuing this 
subject further at present, I must content myself with presenting |speci- 
mens of the two Recensions, of the existence of which we have obtain- 


ed sufficient proof. “᾿ 


1 Kollar. 26. has here both readings : 


ss REV. I. 
HESYCHIUS. LUCIANUS. 
4. ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν AC. 579. ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ, 6 ὧν 
5. λύσαντι ac. Kollar. 26. λούσαντι 
ἐκ τῶν ἅμαρτ.. ac. Koll. 26. 579, ἀπὸ τῶν ἅμαρτ... 
9, συγκοινωνός Ac. Koll. 96. 579. κοινωνός 
καὶ τὴν μαρτυρ.. AC. 579. καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρ.... 
᾿Ιησοῦ ac. Koll. 26. 579. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
13, τῶν λυχνιῶν AC 579. τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν 
1ὅ. πεπυρωμένης AC πεπυρωμένον 
18, τῶν αἰώνων ac. Koll. 96, ὅ79. τῶν αἰώνων aun 
REV. Il. 
1. τῷ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ac. Koll.! 26. τῆς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 
9, τὸν κόπον ac. Koll. 26. τὸν κύπον σου 
3. καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακας AC 579. καὶ οὐκ éxoniacas 
5. ἔρχομαί cor AC ἔρχομαΐ σοι ταχύ 
πάν κομῶν οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν 
9. οἶδά σου τὴν ϑλῖψιν ac. ; Siwy 
10. μὴ φοβοῦ AC μηδὲν φοβοῦ 
ἰδοὺ μέλλει AC 579. ἰδοὺ δὲ μέλλει. 
13. οἶδα ποῦ κατοικ. .. AC 579. { ϑἰδα;τα EON σοὺ, Melia 
. SUIOEE. clays 
᾿Αντίπας ὃ μάρτ... Ac αἷς ᾿Αντίπας ὃ μάρτ... 
14. ἐδίδασκεν τ. β. AC. ἐδίδαξεν τ. B. 
18. ὑφϑαλμούς ac. Koll. 96. 579. ὀφϑαλμοὺς αὑτοῦ 
20. ἡ λέγουσα AC ἢ λέγει 
; REV. IIl. 
Ὁ, ἃ ἔμελλον ac. Koll. 26. ὅ79. ἃ ἔμελλες 
ἀποϑανεῖν Ac. Koll. 96. 579. ἀποβάλλειν 
3. εἴληφας χαὶ ἤκουσας χαὶ q ἔ 
τήρει καὶ μετανόησον ; Ac. Koll. 26. ὅ79, Angas καὶ μεταγνόησον 
4, ἀλλ ἔχεις ὀλίγα ὁ ὀνόματα ac. Koll. 26. 579. ca? ohiyo i ἔχεις ὀνόματα 
9.1 ὅτι ἐγὼ ἡγάπησα ac. Koll. 96, 579. ὅτι ἠγάπησα 
12. ἡ καταβαίνουσα AC. 579. ἢ καταβαίνει 
17. ὅτυ πλούσιος AC 579. πλούσιος 
οὐδὲν a AC ovdevos χρείαν Ὁ 
18. ἐγχρίσ. . . . τούς Ac. 579. ἵνα éyyoic. .. . τούς 


~ ~ ? 
τῷ τῆς ἕν Eqéow. 


SECOND PERIOD. 131 


The number of Constantinopolitan MSS. as may be inferred from 
what has been said, far exceeds those of the Egyptian text; there is 
even a great scarcity of oe Whence does this arise? Was it not 
once the case that the West was supplied with Greek MSS. from Egypt? 
Certainly the state of tines bas altered very much. At the revival of 
science in the West, we obtained the Greek literature, MSS., and lan- 
guage by means of comers from Constantinople ; ait whoever wished 

_to acquire knowledge on these subjects, or to perfect it when acquired, 
travelled thither or into the isles and provinces of European Greece, 
and there collected literary treasures from which to draw information 
on his return. ‘hus our libraries were supplied chiefly from those 
countries in which the edition of Lucian was prevalent. Probably a 
fourth part of our MSS. are from Mt. Athos, and from the hands of the 
industrious monks who there employed themselves in transcribing. 

In Egypt before the fourth century, the knowledge of the Greek lan- 
guage visibly declined: it was then confined to the districts on the 
coast of the Mediterranean and finally to Alexandria. At the period 
of the conquest of the Saracens it forsook the country for a while, until 
it was permitted to return. The influence of the changes that have 
occurred in Egypt upon the Greek MSS. of the Bible, will be discussed 
hereafter. (§ 41.) 


ORIGEN’S RECENSION. 


§ 39. 
\ 

It was, as we have already said, the last part of a toilsome and inde- 
fatigable life that Origen devoted to the emendation of the New Testa- 
ment. This shows why his labors of this nature are not more often al- 
luded to in his works. He made use of the vulgaris editio, as is evident 
from the frequent singular readings in his citations and the want of 
uniformity observable in them. 

There is a class of MSS. however, which we have reason to ascribe 
to him. In the more important readings (ὃ 38), which are found in 
Lucian’s text and not in the Egyptian MSS, e. g. Matt. 6: 13, 20: 22, 
Mark 6: LI, 13:14, Luke 4: 18, 10: 22, John 1: 27, 5: 16, 7: 22 
and 69, they agree entirely with the Antiochian text, as we here call 
Lucian’s text from the place in which he labored at his task. Such re- 
semblance might be expected on account of the place in which Origen 
undertook the execution of his emendation ; viz. (as it was in his extreme 
old age) at Tyre, to which place the Antiochian text must have extend- 
ed its influence if it had any at all. On the other hand, the MSS. we are 
considering very frequently incline to the Egyptian side in readings of 
less importance ; lastly, they have also many peculiar readings agreeing 
with neither of the other two recensions. 

This family of MSS. consists, as it regards the Gospels, of the fol- 
lowing members, A, K, M, 42, 106, 114, 116, and no. 10 in Matthei. 

A or Codex Alex. Musei Britannici, though in the Acts, the Pauline 
and Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse it exhibits the text of Hesy- 
chius, plainly follows another recension in the Gospels, and resembles 


132 3 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


the MSS. K or Cyprius (formerly Colbert. 5149, now in the Royal Li- 
brary 63) and M in the same Library, formerly 22437, now 48. 
MS. 42 in Wetstein was once in the College at Troyes; 106 belong- 


ed to the 
British Museum, and 1] 
by Griesbach. Code 
brary of Nicephorus, Archbishop of Chersonesus. 

We will now present some specimens of this recension 


6 the Harl. MS. 5567 in the same, 


LUKE IX. 


Alexandrian Recension, 


arl of Winchelsea; 114 is the Harleian MS. 


5540 in the 
both collated 


< 10 is a splendid MS. of the Gospels in the Li- 


Constantinopolitan 


Recension. 


δώδεκα 
μὴ δέξωνται 
εἰς τόπον ἔρη- 
μον πόλεως 
᾿ nah. Βηϑο.. 
uno. εἰπεῖν τοῦτο 


τ. τ. He ἐγερϑῆναι 
ὁπ. μου ἐλϑεῖν 
ἀπαρνησάσϑω 

αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκο-- 
ΐ λουϑ. μοι 


> ~ 
ἀληθῶς, εἶσι 
ἑστώτων 


ἐπίβλεψαι ἐπὶ τόν 
a 3 ᾿ 
καὶ ἀνέξομαι 
> - 2 [ 
ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτόν 
eek Ἂς. ΕῚ 
καϑ' ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ 
© ~ 
ἡμῶν 


στραφεὶς δέ 


ἰἀπελϑόντε πρῶτον 


καὶ εἶπε πρός 
ΐ κρούοντι avoo- 
γήσεται 
. δὲ ὑμῶν 
ΐ πονηροὶ ὑπάρ-- 
χοντὲς 


δώδε 9. Matthaei. 
1. ὁώῤεκα, WAIT 2 δώδεκα ano. 42. 106.114. 116. Mt. 10. 
ταὶ αὑτοῦ 
5. μὴ δέχωντατς |μῆ δέχωνται λκ. 116. Με. 10. 
10. εἰς πόλιν κα-- {és ἔρημον τόπον 
λουμένην πόλεως καλου--ν Δ 114.116. Μι. 10. 
Gass οἷ μένης Βηϑο... 
21. ud. λέγειν τοῦτο und. λέγειν τοῦτο κ κ. 42. 116. Mt. 10. 
22.7. τ. ἧ. ἐγερ-- ΕΚ ay) 
ϑῆναι, appar- > [ζ. τ. ἡ. ἀναστηναν =a, 42. 116 Με.10. 
ently. 
23. ὁπ. μου ἔρχεσϑαι Ἰὐπ. μου ἔρχεσθαι ax. 42. 114. 116. Mt. 10. 
ἀρνησάσϑω, κἃ Ιἰὰ ργῃσάσϑω ax. 42. 114.116. Μι.10. 
probably. 
αὐτοῦ καὶ Gxo-)| > ~~ a. ee 
αἰτοῦ καϑ' ἡμέραν 
λουϑ. μοι. ες καὶ Shiro: AK. 114. 116. Mt. 10. 
. parently. 6 
27. ἀληϑῶ:, εἰσι ἀληϑῶς ἔτι εἰσί KM. 116. Mt. 10. 
ἑστηκότων ἑστώτων AK. 42.106. 116. Mt. 10. 
38. oo ἐπὶ αὶ ἰξπίβλεψαι ἐπὶ τόν aKM. 42.106. 116. Mt. 10 
41. καὶ ἀνέξομαι ἕως πότε ἀνέξομαι κ. 42. 116. Mt. 10 
45. gue ynpE αντῶν } ἐπερωτῆσαι αὐτόν ἘΜ. 116. Mt. 10 
probably. 
nad ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ γ ᾿καϑ' ὑμῶν ὑπὲ [ 
50 ‘ae "πρὶ ὑμ ia ὑπέρ τς cau 114. 116. ain part. 
4 δὲ ἢ og 
55. στραφεὶς dé as eit a ᾿ κ 114, 116. Mt. 10 
59, ἀπελϑόντι i ἀπελθεῖν πρῶτον aK, 42 114.116. Mt. 10 
πρῶτον ᾿ j ; Hit a je 
LUKE XI. 
5. καὶ εἶπε reds καὶ Eger πρός ako. 42, 106.114. Mt. 10 
10. κρούοντι ἀνοί-- Ὁ κρούοντι ἀνοιχϑή- i ov 114 
γεται, appar, σέται : j 
11. δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν akM. 42.106. 114. 116. Mt. 10 
13. πονηροὶ ὑπάρ-- » 
'χοντες } πονηροὶ OvTES Km. 42. 114. Mt. 10. 
15. τῷ ἄρχοντι τῷ ἄρχοντε axm. 42. 106. 114. Mt. 10 


εἰἄρχοντε - 


‘ 


SECOND PERIOD. 


Alexandrian Recension. 


133 


Constan, Recension, 


22. σκῦλα 
28. φυλάσσοντες 


44. οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ore 


15. after δαιεόνια 
is subjoined : ὁ 


ο ¥ 
δὲ ἀποκριϑεὶς( r 
καὶ ἀποκριϑεὶς Ax. 42. 106. 114, 110. Mt. 10. 
εἶπε' πῶς δύνα-- ΠΥ 
ται σατανᾶς σα-- ive 
τανᾶν ἐκβάλλειν ) ᾿Ξ, 
σκεύη κ. 45. 114.116. Mt. 10.σκῦλα 
φυλάσσοντες ΤΥ 114. 


οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμμα- ἰ 


Ὶ 
᾿ 


τεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖ- > » 


wel 
οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὅτι 


114. 116. Mt. 10. ; 


κρ. ὅτι 

3 ~  _, [οἰκοδομεῖτε αὐτῶν οἰκοδομεῖτε αὐ-- 
48. οἰκοδομεῖτε τά | aot | ak. 42. 114.116. Mt. 10. ae 
τῶν τά 


2 τὰ © 
ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος 


Bl. ἀπὸ pier ἡ "Αβελ, τοῦ δι-δ xw.42. 114. Μι10. ἕω} αἵματος 
Μ, 


4 
Apes καίου Bed 

52. οὐκ εἰσήλϑατε οὐκ εἰσήλϑατε A Mt. 10.|ov% εἰοήλϑετε 

53. κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελ-- ) λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος δὲ α. 
ϑόντος sini} ταῦτα πρὸς ct Νὴ τ. π. αὐτοὺς 
ἤρξαντο τοὺς, ἤρξαντο ἤρξαντο 


The agreement of these MSS. is pretty plain. I am aware however 
of what may be said on the other hand. I had observed from a colla- 
tion of other chapters and other Gospels that A and Matthzi 10 are 
sometimes unfaithful to the family, and that KM and 106 are often silent 
when they should have a voice, and hence I judged had not been collat- 
ed word for word, but only hastily. Griesbach collated MSS. 114 and 
116 only in certain passages, in order to gain some idea of their charac- 
ter and peculiarities. 

All this and more I well knew ; but perceiving a striking agreement 
in these MSS. so far as they were collated, well or ill, I thought a con- 
clusion might be drawn from what was known to what was unknown, 
from what had been to what had not been collated. 

When the revered Griesbach suggested the scruples above mention- 
ed,! I felt their force the more because they had before occurred to my 
own mind. The MS. K was collated anew by one of my pupils and 
friends, but the result was less satisfactory than I had hoped.* Yet 
from subjecting these MSS. to a new investigation, as minute as possi- 
ble without another collation, so much was clear, that they maintained 
a peculiar character of their own, and agreed sometimes with the Alex- 
andrian, sometimes with the Antiochian, or, if it be preferred, the Con- 
stantinopolitan text, many times also coinciding with each other in pe- 
culiar readings. They may therefore stand separate for the present, 
until further investigations shall enable the critic to pass a final judg- 
ment upon them. Or rather they will always remain separate, since 
compared with other MSS. they are certainly alone. 


1 Commentar. Crit. in textum Grewc. Novi Test. Particula Ilda. Accedunt 
meletemata de vetustis textus recensionibus. Meletem. II. Jene. 1811. 


am below, Chap. VI, respecting MSS., an account of the Codex Cyprius, 


, > α 
φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν 
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραβᾳε, 

καὶ Dao. ὑσπο- 
‘ 


134 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


The same character belongs also to the Gospels of the Philoxenian 
version or text of Polycarp, exclusive of the margin which Thomas of 
Charkel occupies. In the more important readings pointed out above 
they agree with Lucian; in the smaller with the Egyptian MSS.; and 
sometimes they contain readings of their own. As to the agreement of 
this version with the MSS. AKM &c. it harmonises with this class of 
MSS. in the passages extracted from Luke. We cannot indeed tell 
whether the translator read εἰπεῖν OF λέγειν, ἀρνήσασϑαι or ἀπαρ- 
νήσασϑαι, ἑστεκότων or ἑστώτων, and so far the agreement is not so 
striking as it may be between Greek MSS. ; but yet it is perceptible, 
and this too in remarkable readings. Εἰ. g. "Luke 9: 22, ἀναστῆναι; 
23, καϑ' ἡμέραν; 27, adn tog ¢ ὅτι; 41, ἕως πότε; 11: 15, ὁ δὲ ἀποκρυεϑεὶς 
εἶπε, πῶς δύναται σατανᾶς σατανᾶν ᾿εκβάλλειν; 22, τὰ σκεύη; 34, σχο- 
réetvov ἔσται. K 42,106. Luke 11: 51, "“4βελ τοῦ δικαίου. 

That which particularly demands attention in this version, is the crit- 
ical marks which Origen has elsewhere used, the obelisks and asterisks 
by which it is distinguished from all the versions of the New Testament, 
as the Syriac Hexaplar is from those of the Old. Now as the Old Tes- 
tament version came from Origen’s amended text, we are led to believe 
that it must be the case also with that of the New Testament ; espe- 
cially as both belonged to the same sect, the Monophysites. We may 
further believe that the translator Polycarp sought an authenticated text 
that he might employ his time and pains to good purpose, and found 
in Origen’s recension a better than he could have obtained by critici- 
sing the text himself. These considerations appeared to justify me in 
believing, to my satisfaction, that I saw Origen’s text in the Philoxenian 
version, and in referring the origin of the latter to the MSS. which pre- 
sent that text. 

A closer relation of these MSS. to the Philoxenian text seemed to me 
to be pointed out by the fact that their distinctive and peculiar readings 
are marked with an asterisk in the Philoxenian version. In Mark 10: 
20, KM, 42, 114, 116 and Matthei 10 add, after νεὐτητὸς μοὺς the 
words τί ἔτι ᾿ὑστερῶ, and in Mark 10: 21, after καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, the 
words εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶν at, both of which appear in the Philoxenian 
version with the mark *. So too in Mark 1: 19, where after δίχτυα 
KM and 42 add αὐτῶν; Luke 8: 24, where after γαλήνη Κα, A2, 114, 
116, Matt. 10, add μεγάλη ; Luke 9: 23, where after σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ 
ΑΚ, 114, 116, Matt. 10, add καϑ' ἡμέραν; Luke 17: 23, where after 
ἐκεί KM, 116, add ὁ Χριστός and 42, 114, something similar ; Luke 20: 
Al, where after πῶς λέγουσι ΚΜ, 42 , have τινές ; Luke 22: 60, where 
KM, 42 after λαλοῦντος, read τοῦ Πέτρου instead of αὐτοῦ; Luke 22: 
61, where the same MSS. add o σήμερον. after φωνῆσαι; and 24: 43, 
where after ἔφαγεν, K, 42, tead καὶ ra ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ; and 
John 5: 4, where after κατὰ καιρὸν AK,42 add ἐλούετο. All these ad- 
ditions are found marked with an asterisk in the Philoxenian version. 

It is true that none of these MSS. yet retain Origen’s critical marks, 
and not a single MS. of the New Testament has them except the Phi- 
loxenian version. Butit is easily seen how they disappeared from the 
Greek MSS. The copyists made such confusion in the Old Testa- 
ment by misplacing the critical signs that it became necessary to drop 
the obelisks and asterisks and really to strike out or adopt what Origen 


ae 


SECOND PERIOD. 135 


had rejected or approved by means of such signs. The Librarii did 
with the New Testament asthey had done with the Old ; and the conse- 
quence of this was, that the Origenian MSS. were correctly copied 
without Origen’s signs. 

So much for the text of the Gospels. It was now my endeavor, un- 
der the guidance of the Philoxenian version, to discover those MSS. of 
the Acts and Epistles likewise, which have preserved the text of this re- 
cension. I spared no pains for the purpose, but without success. The 
Acts and Epistles in the Philoxenian version do indeed maintain a pe- 
culiar character, as we shall see further on (§ 76) in treating of this 
version ; but few MSS. of these parts of the New Testament have been 
collated, and of these few the greater part not continuously, but in de- 
tached passages and without due care. Hence if none are found a- 
mong them which uniformly resemble the Philoxenian version, the rea- 
son seems to be rather the deficiency of collations than real deviation 
from the MSS. which are allied to this version. 

Before we close this period we must defend the preceding narrative 
of the fate of the text from objections. A strong desire has been man- 
ifested to take away the historical grounds upon which we have rested 
and to adopt another theory upon other pretended grounds.! 

I. Jerome, to whom we have made frequent appeals, used, as to the 
Septuagint, the Hexapla text of Origen. But this did not hinder him 
from admitting that two other recensions existed, viz. those of Lucian 
and Hesychius, and exercised far more extensive sway than Origen’s 
emendation. He mentions by name the countries in which they main- 
tained ecclesiastical authority. Now when three critics had revised 
the Old Testament, can it be the case that it never entered the mind of 
any one to perform the same task for the MSS. of the New Testament 
likewise, which were more or less disfigured in various countries? 
And is it at all improbable that the same men examined and corrected 
the MSS. of the New Testament? If they did so, both Testaments 
would have been circulated together in those countries which received 
their emendations. Now the factis that they did so, as Jerome, though 
disapproving their labors, testifies in his Epistle to Damasus. 

But Jerome only mentions a mere report respecting the copies of Lu- 
cian and Hesychius, which appeared to him wholly uncertain. Let us 
not be frightened from investigation by the decided manner in which 
this is stated. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus to restore one 
of the existing versions which had become very corrupt, to a pure and 
stable text. After he had completed his work he gave an account of 
his mode of procedure in an epistle to Damasus which is brief and 
rhetorical; two causes of obscurity which might easily have been 
avoided in simple narrative details. But he spoke of things which were 
familiar, and therefore judged it best rather to hint at than to enlarge 
upon them. ᾿ 

First of all he came to the conclusion that it was in vain to attempt 
to extricate himself from the chaos of the Latin MSS. without the 


1 Dr. John Martin Augustin Scholz. “Biblisch-kritische Reise—nebst eine 
Geschichte des Textes des Neu. Testament. Leipzig, 1823,” and “Cur critice 
in historiam textus Evangeliorum, Heidelberg 1820.”’ 


136 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


guidance of the Greek text: ‘Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est 
adhibenda, respondeant quibus?’’ For this purpose he had indispensa- 
ble need of not only Greek but good Greek MSS., and not merely one, 
but many. He labored “ex codicum Grecorum collatione.” These 
must have been selected from ἃ Jarge number ; and hence a large num- 
ber must have been inspected and criticised. An undistinguishing use 
of MSS., such assome are inclined to suppose him to have made, would 
have been very indiscreet. He divided them into two classes ; the mo- 
dern or (so called) amended ones of Lucian and Hesychius, upon 
which his choice ought to have fallen, and the ancient, to which he gave 
the preference because they harmonized better with the Latin text. 
“Codicum Grecorum—sed veterum qui non multum a lectionis Latine 
consuetudine discreparent.” He reprobated the amended MSS., “‘qui- 
bus nihil profuit emendasse ;” for the earlier versions, “‘scriptura ante 
translata,” contradicted them and the Latin was to be preferred. This 
was the point: he desired so to amend the Latin text, “ut asaliva quam 
quis semel imbibit Svc.” that it should not deviate too widely from the 
customary Latin text. He incidentally supports the rejection of the 
emendations of Lucian and Hesychius at Rome (where he then lived) 
and within its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by the public opinion, from which 
only a few perverse men deviated, “paucorum hominum—perversa con- 
tentio.” ᾿ 

Thus Jerome’s task was plain before him. We could have no rea- 
son to doubt whether he was really acquainted with the two classes of 
MSS. unless he had erred in classifying them or had incorrectly stated 
their relation to the Latin versions. But the relation of the ancient 
MSS. to the Latin he has confessedly stated aright; and that of the 
amended ones to the Latin, also, he states to have been what it must 
have been if the Latin versions were made before the two emendations. 
Besides, he must have been acquainted with the emendations of Hesy- 
chius and Lucian, inasmuch as in his letter to Damasus he ascribes to 
these men a critical examination not only of the New but also of the 
Old Testament, of the last of which he treats more at large in other 
writings. Everything proves that he did not speak in ignorance of his 
subject. 

Now, if my opponent would justify his language, he is bound to prove 
that Jerome, when he returned to Rome to Damasus, knew nothing 
certain respecting the copies of Hesychius and Lucian, after he had 
travelled throughout Thrace and Asia Minor, stayed a long time in 
Antioch, lived several years at Chalcis in Syria in studious retirement in 
a monastery, already collected a considerable library, received instruc- 
tion in Hebrew, consumed a year and some months in his homeward 
journey to Constantinople, and there sought the company of Gregory 
Nazianzen with particular reference to the study of the Holy Scriptures. 
When this is satisfactorily done, he must further show that Jerome 
while in Rome, neglected to examine the Greek MSS., when it was in- 
cumbent on him to inform himself respecting the aid they could afford 
him in accomplishing his undertaking. 

And even then all would not have been done. Jerome moreover ap- 
peals to public opinion at Rome, and within its ecclesiastical precincts, 
from which opinion only a few perverse and contentious men differ. 


SECOND PERIOD. 137 


ed. Thus it was a matter which had been deliberated among people of 
information. Now the value of the testimony is not altered, though the fa- 
ther followed the decision of the Roman literati; for it was the testimony 
of the perverse as well as the others. 

I will mention myself ‘an additional difficulty which does not indeed 
endanger the main point in controversy, but might have been employed 
as a subsidiary weapon. Jerome’s mouth is full of such language as 
“cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat.” The 
Africano-, Italico-, and Gallico-Latin versions might indeed have justified 
him in using the expression ‘‘cum multarum gentium versionibus,” but the 
“lingua” was butone. I would not venture the assertion, however, that 
Jerome, during his stay with the Presbyters and Syrian monks in Chal- 
cis, could not have derived some information respecting their church 
version and its relation to the Greek text. I could not avouch that the 
father, in his intercourse with Egyptian bishops and monks who were at 
that time banished from their country on account of ecclesiastical dis- 
sensions, did not yield so far to curiosity, as to converse respecting the 
versions of Egypt, of which the Upper-Egyptian resembles very much 
the Latin versions. 

II. I must desert my previous opponent for a moment, in order to re- 
ply to a learned and estimable man, who proposes a doubt whether me- 
tropolitan regulations were then so perfect that the recension of the 
capital could have been prescribed toa country.!_ But the authority of 
the metropolis had long before been the standard for the surrounding 
country, and in later times gave rise to the metropolitan system. The 
authority of the cities did not proceed from the Patriarchs and Metro- 
politans, but was exercised by the cities over their own churches with 
their officers. The capitals contained more learned men and greater re- 
sources, and were in general the places of instruction for both Pagan 
and Christian, (e. g. Alexandria and Antioch,) and from them the 
country obtained its learned men. Alexandria, it is well known, con- 
tained a celebrated school in which Christian teachers qualified them- 
selves for their office. Antioch had one similar which differed from the 
former as to biblical interpretation. Respecting this school, we have 
already some elegant investigations,” and are promised some more com- 
plete from a more learned pen.? Now the text of Lucian proceeded 
from the Antiochian school, and the Hesychian from the Alexandrian, 
which considered the text as its own. Thus they came from the two 
principal schools in Christendom. I have not said this for the informa- 
tion of the learned, but only to bring to their recollection what they al- 
ready knew. . 

III. I return to my first opponent. He pretends that the ancient cor- 
ruptions of the text were confined to Alexandria alone. We shall make 
no reply to certain very weighty arguments presented by him, such as 
that it would have been indiscreet to permit any such thing, and what 


1 Dr. J. Sev. Vater, in the “Kirchen. historichen Archiv. 1829." Halle 2d. 
Heft. p. 84. 


2 “De Schola Antiochena programma.” ed. D. Frid. Manter Selandiw Episcop. 
Hafnie 1811. 4. 


3 Neander in his preface to John Chrysostom. 


18 


138 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


is said respecting the holy character of the bishops, who in other places 
exercised a better supervision than to suffer it. Alexandria and Egypt 
were not, to say the least, deficient in holy teachers; but the most holy 
could not prevent the people, if they read the Bible, from inquiring of 
learned men respecting an obscure expression and subjoining to the 
MS. the more intelligible word, or making use of other biblical passages 
in explanation and noting them on the margin to refresh their memory 
&c. ὅσο. But enough concerning arguments of this kind. It should 
not be forgotten that Origen, then and for along time resident at Tyre, 

felt the necessity of correcting the MSS. of the New Testament in his 
vicinity and probably elsewhere, and actually performed the task. ‘The 
Codices Adamantii, whose readings Jerome quotes in his commentaries, 
leave no room for doubt on this point. 

IV. It issomewhat venturesome for any one to assert positively with- 
out evidence and to certify under his own hand, that Pamphilus bought 
up MSS. of the New Testament in Alexandria (which abounded in 
them) and thus gave occasion for the corruptions which took place in 
the MSS. of Palestine.'! [5 it probable that he who venerated Origen 
and his works, especially his critical works, so highly, would have done 
this? All we know of him would lead us rather to conjecture that he 
used his utmost endeavours to extend the Origenian MSS. 

On the contrary the Alexandrians, out of esteem for the copies of Pam- 
philus, collated their copies with his in Czsarea, or caused them to be 
thus collated. The remains of Codex H in the Epistles are acknowl- 
edged to be Alexandrian,? and according to the subscription the MS. 
was collated at Caesarea with a copy written by Pamphilus’ own hand. 

V. We are required to do away the difference between the MSS. BC 
L &c. (which we regard as the later Egyptian text,) and the MSS. of 
the corrupt text of D Cantabrigiensis, together with those which are col- 
lated on the margin of the Philoxenian version, and in general all the 
MSS. which we have wrongly represented as exhibiting the κουνη é- 
δοσις. But if time has made a difference, is it incumbent upon us to 
do it away? The text of the MSS. of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις ceases with 
the Memphitic version, and is found no later than the writings of the 
fathers of the 4th century, Athanasius, Macarius, &c., appearing distinct- 
ively in no Egyptian father afterwards. Hence the former is the more 
modern, the latter the antiquated text. We cannot therefore make use 
of the sage advice that we should confound together things which time 
has distinguished. 

Other objections are completely obviated by our history of the text 
and the versions. What we have said of the Armenian version rests on 
good historical accounts concerning that nation. How then can any 


one reckon it among the monuments of a pure text, and_ found infer- 
ences upon that supposition? 


1 Dr. J. M.A. Scholz: “Bibl. Krit. Reise und Geschichte des textes. p- 
174,175. 


2 Griesbach Symbole Critice, P. II. P. 83—87. 


THIRD PERIOD. 139 


HISTORY OF THE TEXT. THIRD PERIOD. 


§ 40. 


Through the labors of these three learned men, there was now a text es- 
tablished, and a stop put for a time to the destructive proceedings of im- 
prudent men and half-formed critics. This improved state of the text was 
not indeed of long duration, but it was fraught with important and use- 
ful consequences. Tenorant critics could not carry forward the confu- 
sion which they had begun ; they were obliged to begin anew, and to 
labor for a long time before they could bring ‘the text back to its former 
condition. 

It was impossible that the recensions should long retain their original 
purity ; for it was not only customary, but even necessary, for the trans- 
cribers to consult a second and third copy, in order by their aid to cor- 
rect the mistakes which had been committed by their predecessors at all 
events, and from which a transcript could not easily be completely free. 
For this purpose old copies were generally used when such could be 
procured, as the subscriptions to the MSS. frequently inform us: ἄντε- 
βλήϑη πρὸς τὰ παλαιότατα ἀντίγραφα, πρὸς παλαιὸν ἀντίγραφον &e. 

Now it must sometimes have happened that a Codex of {Π6᾿ κοινὴ 
ἔκδοσις was met with, and readings again transferred from it into the 
revised text. Thus, in Matt. 24: 36, the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις contained 
after οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν the addition : οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς (D, 138, 
124,) which neither Lucian nor Hesychius acknowledged, and which, 
as Jerome expressly asserts, was not to be found in the third recension, 
in Codicibus Adamantii et Picrii ; ; yet the transcriber of the Vat. MS. 
B met with itin some old copy and again introduced it. This ancient 
and valuable MS. has received many other readings from the same 
source ; 6. g. Matt. 11: 23, ἕως ἄδου καταβήσῃ, DB; Matt. 12: 48, 
εἶπε τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῶ, DB; 15: 6, ἠκυρώσατε τὸν λόγον.. ; 16: 86, 
καὶ παραγγείλας τῷ ὄγλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἔλαβε τοὺς πιά. 
19:9, τὴν γυναῖκα, αὐτοῦ τ παρεκτὸς πορνείας, 24: 42, ποῖᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος; 
25: 39, εἴδομεν ἀσϑενοῦντα &c. Such was the case in Codex Cin 
Luke 3: 16, which like D adds εἰς μετάνοιαν after βαπτίζω υμᾶς, 
which Origen i in his works expressly rejects as a false reading, and which 
neither of ‘the recensions has adopted ; so Luke 8: 17, 0 οὐ φανερὸν 
ἔσται, DC; and Luke 8: 42, C reads further after ἀπέϑνησκεν---καὶ é ἐγέ- 
VETO ἐν τῷ πορεύεσϑαι as it is presented by D, and in part by Marci- 
on; also Luke 11: 43, where C adds, like D, 13, 69 and 124, after ἐν 
ταῖς ἀγοραῖς---καὶ τὰς πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς ᾿δείπνοις ὅσο. In Luke 
18: 36, δύω ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὁ εἷς παραληφϑήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος 
ἀφεϑήσεται certainly does not belong to Lucian’s recension (it is want- 
ing in FGHSV, ὁ, ἡ and other important MSS. in it); yet it has crept 
again into d, rit l, andr (Moscow MSS). It was found in some of the 
copies from which this recension sprung, as we see from the Peschito. 

We will not accumulate the examples which are to be found in great 
numbers in the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles ; but will only observe 
that this relapse to the old MSS. is frequently chargeable to readers 


140 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 


who noted down readings upon the margin of their MSS. which were 
afterwards introduced by some one else into the body of the text, or 
themselves erased the reading of the revised text and wrote another 
in its stead. Through such an alteration, for example, the word μόνον 
came into the MS. C after φύλλα in Mark 11: 18, which is found in the 
copies of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις, 18, 69, 124, and in Origen. The case is 
the same in this MS. with the word yaioe after λέγεν in‘Mark 14: 45. 
So too in C Luke 20: 23, πανουργίαν was made πονηρίαν, as is read 
in Dand on the margin of the Philoxenian version. So also C obtained, 
in 1 Cor. 16: 15, after Sceqave the addition Φορτουνάτου καὶ Ayai- 
κοῦ, which occurs in FG; and in Col. 1: 12, τῷ (ϑέῷ τῷ) ἱκανώσαντε, 
which occurs likewise in FG. 

People could not cease making glosses now, any more than formerly, 
as we have abundant evidence in the MSS. I will notice only one ex- 
ample which now lies under my eye. The Euthalian Codex, Acts N. 
40 in Wetstein, inserts in Acts 1: 12, between ‘/egovoadnm and σαβ-- 
βάτου ὁδὸν the explanation : τοσοῦτον ὃν τὸ διάστημα ὅσον δυνατὸν 
᾿Ιυυδαῖον περιπατεῖν, and likewise Acts 11: 18, N explains γλεύκους 
in the margin thus: τὸ ἀπόσταγμα τῆς σταφυλῆς πρὶν ἀντληϑήναι, 
which could not but receive the same honor at the hands of so unskilful 
a copyist as he must have been who interpolated the former gloss into 
the text. Ἢ 

Selected passages of the New Testament were now too, as before, 
read in the churches, and were furnished when necessary with a form 
of introduction or conclusion which the reader probably wrote only up- 
onthe margin. We observe a conclusion of this kind in the margin 
of the Basle MS. E, and the Seidel MS. Η πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ, 
ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί, Luke 14:24. In the Moscow MS. V, these words are 
appended to the text by alater hand; in others they were originally in- 
corporated with it. Now Matthzi has proved from other circumstan- 
ces that here began a church-lesson. ‘The case is similar with respect 

‘to the addition: ταῦτα λέγων ἐφώνει᾽ ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω af- 
ter πλουτῶν Luke 12: 21, which isto be seen inthe margin of E and 
V, and in the text of other MSS. Compare the same addition in 
Luke 21: 4,in several MSS. of Lucian’s recension. 

Among the rest, too, the conjectures and explanations of the fathers 
afforded materials for interpolation. We will only refer to two familiar 
examples. Codex C has in its margin, Matt. 8:28, the reading 71ὲρ-- 
γεσήνων, Codex L has it in the text; in John 1: 28, several MSS. have 
in the margin and others in the text, originally or by correction, the 
reading ϑηϑαβαρᾷ instead of δηϑανίᾳ. The first was proposed by 
Origen ; the other is recommended by John Chrysostom. 

But far more mischievous was the procedure of those who collated 
their MSS. with a foreign recension, and undertook accordingly what 
they thought emendations in them, thus mingling the text of two recen- 
sions. This has occurred in particular passages very frequently and in 
very many MSS.; but it is also sometimes the case that this mixture 
runs through whole chapters and even whole MSS. Had this proce-. 
dure been more general, such confusion must have been created by this 
time that it would be wholly impossible to discover and distinguish the 
several recensions. 


THIRD PERIOD. 141 


The first who pursued such a course throughout the whole text was 
the Alexandrian deacon, Euthalius, who, under the first consulate of the 
Emperor Leo, A. D. 462, as he himself states, undertook a peculiar 
task in regard to the New Testament, of which we shall soon speak 
more at large. On this occasion he collated the Alexandrian text with 
the autograph copy of Pamphilus at Caesarea, (as he boasts in the sub- 
scription at the end of the Pauline Epistles,) and thus furnished others 
with the means of interpolating the recension of his own church with 
Origenian readings.! 

He himself did not introduce them into the text ; he was content to 
note them on the lower margin. _I discovered this from the very old 
and venerable fragments of an Euthalian Codex, which were once in 
the possession of Coislin, Bishop of Metz, and which are to be found in 
Wetstein and Griesbach among the MSS. of Paul’s Epistles under the 
mark H. In the first of these fragments, 1 Cor. 10: 23—9, where the 
Egyptian MSS. reject the addition, v. 28: τοῦ κυρίου ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλή-- 
ρωμα αὐτῆς, Euthalius has restored it again from the copy of Pamphi- 
lus, by placing an asterisk after συνείδησιν, referring to the margin be- 
low in which the clause is presented marked likewise with an asterisk.” 
With intelligent copyists this was productive of no ill consequences ; 
but such were not the greater number. In a later transcript of an Eu- 
thalian MS. in the Cod. Alexandrino- Vatican: n. 179. (Wetstein Ep. 
46.) the readings of which are given by Zacagni, this addition has not 
crept into the text; but all transcribers were not so prudent. It could 
not but happen, therefore, that in some MSS. the text of Origen should 
become mixed with the Egyptian. 

Others less discreet than Euthalius placed various readings in the 
margin without any mark, which were therefore easily taken for emen- 
dations, and inserted in the text in subsequent copies. This is the case 
with the Moscow MS. which Matthaei denominated al. In it are 
found on the margin of the Acts readings from the Moscow Codex J, 
as we are told by Matthaei : ‘‘ probabiliores lectiones fere omnes... - 
Codicis 1 in margine notatas habet.”® Codex /, however, (if this really 
be the same as the one before mentioned,) follows in the Acts, as we 
have already seen, the edition of Hesychius. 

One of the successive possessors of the Vienna MS., Cod. Theol. 
Graec. Num. CCCI. Lambecii XXXIV. took a yet bolder course. 
This MS. contains the Acts, Paul’s and the Catholic Epistles, together 
with the Apocalypse, according to the Constantinopolitan Recension. 
Now some individual has filled it throughout, as far as the Apocalypse, 
which he has spared, with foreign readings inserted between the lines 
and also in the margin. Sometimes he erased the original reading and 
substituted a new one in its stead; or, when he could not well erase 
what was to be omitted, placed marks of omission above it. 

In examining these corrections we find that they agree with the 


1 Montfaucon Biblioth. Coisliniana, olim Segueriana, p. 262. ἀντεβληϑη δὲ ἡ 
βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρείᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοϑήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χει-- 
el γεγραμμένον. τ 

2 Montfaucon Biblioth. Coisliniana, p. 254. 

3 Praefat. in Act. Apost. p. XII, XIII. 


142 ALTERATIONS IN THE 


MSS. ABC and the Coptic version, or at least with one or other of these 
documents, so that the greater part of the readings thus introduced are 
Egyptian, and the whole has become a mixture of different texts. 

In this MS. the traces of alterations are still fresh and plainly per- 
ceptible; but not so in the Vatican MS. N. 367, which has a peculiar 
character in the Acts and Catholic Epistles and, as is well known, ad- 
heres pretty closely to the Hesychian text. In Paul’s Epistles, howev- 
er, it hesitates and wavers. Yet the text of Paul is not so much disfig- 
ured that it cannot be seen that the ground-work is Constantinopolitan. 
If we examine the deviations we shall soon perceive that they are not 
entirely irregular, but are all of the same character, viz. Egyptian. 

Something of this kind occurs more or less in many MSS.; and a- 
mong them are some even of the oldest monuments. We have observed 
before respecting the celebrated Codex A (Alex. Mus. Britan.) that, in 
the Gospels, it deviates oftener from its recension than its fellows, and 
then generally agrees with the Egyptian MSS. In the Acts, Epistles, 
and Apocalypse it is decidedly Egyptian. What accident put the copy- 
ist in possession of an Origenian MS. of the Gospels we cannot tell ; 
but it is easy to perceive that in this part of the text also he made use 
of an Egyptian MS. 

Confusion in the text of the Apocalypse sprung particularly from the 
Commentaries of Andreas and Aretas. Both were Bishops of Caesa- 
rea in Cappadocia. The latter lived in the tenth century; and the age 
of the former is unknown, opinions varying in respect to it between the 
fifth and eighth century. Their commentaries were not adapted to the 
readings of every MS., and yet they were read in many countries, 
Hence the text was often altered according to the expositions of the 
commentators. Frequently too their Scholia were blended with the 
text itself, as we see in many MSS. Now as the Apocalypse, besides 
the usual accidents which befel all MSS., had to encounter these two 
in addition, we need be less surprised that modern copies seldom con- 
tain a homogeneous text. 


CHAPTER V. 


HISTORY OF THE LESS IMPORTANT ALTERATIONS WHICH HAVE 
TAKEN PLACE IN THE BOOKS OF THE . 
NEW TESTAMENT. 


§ AL 


After having attempted to collect and exhibit the main points in the 
history of the text, we may now devote some attention to other appear- 
ances in the MSS. which do not concern the text itself, in order to learn 
their nature, their origin, and antiquity, in what respects they can be 
of service to us, and how far they may assist us in determining the age 
of MSS.; points which are not matters of indifference to criticism. 


BOOKS OF THE N. TEST. 143 


As we commenced our investigations into the history of the text by 
going back to the writing material employed, so the present inquiries 
must begin. 

This material was anciently the Egyptian papyrus. How long this 
continued in general use, is not known ; but it is certain that the New 
Testament was written on the skins of animals as early as the fourth 
century. Constantine the Great had not less than fifty copies made at 
once, ἐν διῳφϑέραις, on the skins of animals, for the churches, whose 
number was daily increasing.! 

Its durability, it would seem, procured this material the preference, 
at least for public use. The library which Pamphilus the Martyr found- 
ed for the church at Caesarea, was already considerably damaged in the 
fourth century, and in order to preserve it from destruction, the two 
Presbyters Acacius and Euzojus re-wrote upon parchment those works 
which especially needed to be re-written.? 

Wealthy individuals caused the skins to be made very thin, and 
moreover frequently ornamented MSS. of the New Testament as arti- 
cles of show. Some, says Chrysostom indignantly, possess the sacred 
books, and have them as if they had them not; they shut them up in 
their book-chests; they pay attention only to the thinness of the skins 
and the elegance of the letters; they use them less for reading than for 
show ; less admiration is excited by the contents than by the gilded 
characters.? 

This material lasted till sometime in the eleventh century, when cot- 
ton paper, βόμβυξ, βόμβαξ, βομβυκινή, gradually came into general 
use in the churches.‘ 


§ 42. 


Books and treatises designed for extended circulation were not writ- 
ten with the abreviations and marks of the ταχυγράφοι, but were trans- 
cribed by the calligraphists in large letters or in the so called uncial 
character. The ancient letters are exactly square, upright, and uncon- 
nected with each other. 

On account of its beautiful regularity, this character prevailed without 
important alteration till about the ninth century ; but on this very ac- 
count it is difficult or rather impossible from the character alone to de- 
termine the precise age of any MS. In the ninth century the letters 
C € O68 lost their round form, and were made narrower to save space ; 
some, as Z,5X, were elongated above or beneath the line. Finally, 
towards the close of the century, the cursive writing came into exist- 
ence, and was in general use in the tenth century. The first MS. in 
cursive writing which we meet with belongs to the year 890.° 


1 Euseb. Vita Constantini, L. ΠΥ, c. 36. Wetsten. Prolog. 


2 Hieronym. Epist. 141. ‘“ Quam (bibliothecam) ex parte corruptam Acacius 
dehine et Euzojus ejusdem ecclesiae sacerdotes in membranis instaurare conatl 
sunt.” 


3 Homil. XXXI. in Joann. p. 202. Ed. Frontoduc. Francof. 
4 Montfaucon Palewographia Graeca, L. I. p. 17.18. 19. 


5 Montf. Paleog. L. IV. p. 269. 270. Montf. refers to an Evangeliarum of 
the year 995 in uncial characters in Append. ad Paleog. p. 510. and 514, 


144 ALTERATIONS IN THE 


But the old character was retained in the MSS. of the New Testa- 
ment longer than in any other. The Vatican Codex N. 354 is in un- 
cial letters, and yet it was not written till the tenth century, in the year 
949, according to the superscription.!_ The text of the beautiful Mos- 
cow fragment of the Gospel of John,? and of the Moscow MS. called 
Cod. g in Matthzi, containing the Pauline and Catholic Epistles,? as 
also that of the Ingolstadt MS. of the four Gospels, is written through- 
out in uncial characters, although the cursive-writing was then custom- 
ary, as is shown by the Scholia annexed to them. 

It would seem that this alphabet was retained yet longer in church- 
copies, Evangelistaria, and all such MSS. as it was wished should have a 
splendid appearance; for the MSS. of the New Testament of the tenth 
century written in the cursive-hand form by far the greater number. 


§ 43. 


The New Testament originally had no marks of punctuation, and 
remained without them for a long time. As was the case in works of 
profane. literature, the words were not even separated from each other 
by any interval. All the letters were united together so that every line 
resembled a single word. ‘Thus in reading a person was obliged to 
separate and combine the letters, in order to form words and make out. . 
the sense. ὶ 

Hence we meet with singular divisions and combinations of words in 
some of the fathers, versions, and MSS. E. g. Chrysostom presents 
the words 1 Cor. 6: 20, δοξάσατε δὲ ἄρα τε τὸν ϑεὸν (as some MSS. 
read,) in this manner: δοξάσατε δὲ ἄρατε tov Geov. So too the Latin 
translator has it; “ portate deum.” Again, in Phil. 1: 1, σὺν ἐπεσκο-- 
mos is read by some of the fathers ovvencoxonocg and commented on 
accordingly ; and in Philip. 2: 4, ἕκαστον σκοποῦντες is divided by 
Cod. Boernerian. thus: ἑκαστοῖς xonovvtes. The noted Codex L, in 
Luke 24: 34, has formed the reading ὥφϑης ἡμῶν from ΦΘΗ͂ΣΕ 
M2N. In 1 Cor.’9: 12, Mill divides OYKEXPHMEGA, as it ap- 
pears in the Codex Alezandrinus thus, οὐ κεκχρήμεϑα' but Wetstein, 
oux ἐχρήμεϑα, bc. &c. 

In the fourth and even fifth century the New Testament had none of 
the ordinary punctuation marks, although there was no want of gram- 
marians in Christendom to exercise their art in this matter. 

Epiphanius, speaking at the commencement of his book περὲ μέτρων 
καὶ σταϑμῶν of accents and other signs which then existed in the Old 
Testament, names but a single mark of division, viz. the Unodvaorodn.4 


1 Birch Proleg. in IV. Evang. p. III. IV. 

2 N. T. ex edit. Frid. Matthi. at the end of Epist. ad Thessal. p. 257. notit. 
Codd. A specimen of the character is to be found with the Apocalypse. 

3 The description is at the end of Epist. ad Rom. p. 265; and there is a speci- 
men of the text in connexion with the Catholic Epistles. 


4 About the close of the eighth century, George Syncellus does indeed speak 
of a Biblical MS. which was divided κατὰ προσῳδίαν καὶ στιγμήν, and was copi- 
ed from a MS. which Basilius, the Cappadocian, had revised. (Chronograph. p. 
203. Richard Simon Hist. Crit. du Nouv. Testam. p. 417.) Butit was only a 
MS. of the O. T.; and he does not say that the accents and punctuation-marks 
existed in and were copied from the MS. of Basilius. 


BOOKS OF THE N. TEST. 145 


In the writings of the New Testament nothing of the kind was known 
to him. He finds fault with certain persons for finishing the sentence 
in John 1: 3 with χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, and connecting ὁ γέγ- 
ovev with ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν. On this occasion, where the division of 
the sentence by punctuation-marks must necessarily have been mention- 
ed if it had existed, no allusion is made tothem. ‘‘ They close the sen- 
tence incorrectly, divide the reading awkwardly, read falsely,” is all 
which he says against the persons; “it should be read thus,” &c. 
He nowhere says,—“ they have displaced the punctuation-marks, they 
point falsely, the punctuation-marks ought to be arranged ae 

Some of the more ancient fathers are directly opposed to Epiphanius 
on this point. Irenaeus closes the passage with οὐδὲ ἕν and transfers 
6 γέγονεν to the next sentence; and thus also it is cited by the Alexan- 
drian fathers, Clement, Origen, and Athanasius. ‘ 

Chrysostom on the contrary held this division to be absolutely hereti- 
cal. We must examine what he says, as otherwise his expression, con- 
sidered separately from the connexion, might be regarded as evidence 
of a system of punctuation in his time. ‘* We will not,” says he, “like 
the heretics, place a full stop, (cv τελείαν στιγμὴν ἐπεϑήσομεν), after 
the words, without him there was nothing made, (χωρὶς αὐτοῦ. ἐγενε- 
το οὐδὲ év.”) 

It might be thought from this expression that the period was in use in 
MSS. of the New Testament. But the sequel shows that he only speaks 
in the technical language of the grammarians, and expresses in their 
manner what was to be done in such acase. He nowhere appeals to 
the usage of MSS., but, having stated his objections drawn from the 
connexion and from the inconsistency of the sense with the rest of the 
Christian doctrines, he proceeds : ‘“‘ Let us then leave this, and pass to the 
usual mode of reading and expounding the passage. And whatis that? 
It is to stop in reading with the word γέγονεν, and then to begin the next 
sentence with the following words, viz. in him was life.”® 

Thus every one divided the sentences according to his own opinion 
and according to his skill in reading, there being no established meth- 
od toserve as astandard; and that division which Epiphanius regarded 
as a sin against the Holy Ghost, is found in the writings of the Ortho- 
dox Athanasius. 

We will now cite some further instances from the Epistles, in which 
the commentators divide differently whenever differences are possible. 
Theodoret divides 1 Cor. 15: 32 thus: ri woe ὄφελος, εἰ νεχροὶ οὐκ 


1 Νομίζουσι δὲ παραγινώσκοντες καὶ μὴ νοοῦντες διαστέλλειν τὴν ἀνάγνωσίν τι-- 
ves ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν. πάντα Ov’ αἰτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδέν: ἕως ὧδε 
ἀποτιϑέντες τὸ ῥητὸν ὑπόνοιαν βλάσφημον εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον λαβόντες, σφάλ.-- 
λονται περὶ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σφάλματος τῆς ἀναγνώσεως σκάζουσιν εἰς 
βλασφημίαν τρεπόμενοι. “H δὲ ἀνάγνωσις οὕτως ἔχει. Ancorat. Ed. Basil. p. 501 
and Edit. juxta Petav. Colon. c. 74. 75. p. 80. The division which Epiphunius 
proposes differs from both the others in having no plausibility αἱ ΑἸ]. He propo- 
ses: οὐδὲ ὃν ὃ γέγονεν ἕν αὐτῷ, and explains it thus: TOUT ἔστι OTL, EL τὰ γέγονε, 
δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. , ' 

2 Homil. IV. in Joann. p. 42. 43. Frontoduc. Francof. Διὸ ταύτην ἀφέντες 
ἐπὶ τὴν νενομισμένην ἔλϑωμεν ἀνάγνωσίν τε καὶ ἐξήγησιν. Τίς δέ ἔστιν αὐτή" τὸ 
μέχρι τοῦ ὁ γέγονεν, ἀναπαύσαι τὸν λόγον" εἶτα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑξῆς λέξεως ἀρξασϑαι τῆς 
λεγούσης, ἕν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. 

19 


146 ALTERATIONS IN THE " 


ἐγείρονται ; Chrysostom concludes the previous sentence with τί moe 
ὀφέλος and arranges the next thus: εἰ νεκροὶ ove ἐγείρονται, φαγομὲν 
z.t.4. ‘The latter concludes Rom. 8: 20, with ὑποταξαντα and then 
begins the 2Ist verse with én’ ἐλσείδε ; but the former joins together ὑπο- 
τάξαντα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι. In 1 Cor. 3: 18, Theodoret connects σοφὸς εἶναι 
ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, and explains it, σοφίαν τοῦ xdouov—Chrys- 
ostom reads ἕν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ μωρὸς γινέσθω and explains it μωρὸν 
κόσμῳ τούτῳ κελεύει γένεσϑαι. Theodoret ends Coloss. 1: 11, wax- 
οοϑυμίαν μετὰ χαρᾶς. Chrysostom ends with μακροϑυμίαν and then 
begins μετὰ χαρᾶς εὐχαριστοῦντες. Not to accumulate examples, we 
will content ourselves with noticing two passages in Jerome. In his 
commentaries, which it is well known he composed with the aid of 
Greek MSS., he says on Ephes. 1: 5, “this may be read in two different 
ways; the expression in caritate may either refer back to the preced- 
ing clause, or may be connected with the following,” etc.!1_ He observes 
in like manner on Philemon 4, 5, that ‘‘the word semper may be assign- 
ed either to the first or second clause; that it is a doubtful case, both 
ways making sense.”? How could this be, if the limits of the clauses were 
defined by established punctuation ? ah 

Theodoret, in his commentaries, sometimes suggests how in his opin- 
ion certain doubtful passages ought to be pointed. In2 Cor. 1: 3, 
εὐλογητὸς ὃ ϑεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Δησοῦ Χριστοῦ, he ad- 
vises that a stop should be made, ἐνταῦϑα στικτέον, after εὐλογητὸς ὁ 
ϑεὸς, lest the meaning should be understood to be, the God of Jesus 
Christ. And in the noted passage, 2 Cor. 4: 4, according to hima 
stop should be made, ἐνταῦϑα vmoorexreoy, after ἐν οἷς ὁ Seog. Also 
in Rom. 9: 22, after εἰ δέ there should be a stop; ἔνταυϑα ὑυὑποστίξαν 
det" as if Paul began to say : if it be so—then hear—Giod willing to show 
his wrath, &c. 

However incorrect any of these proposals may be, they yet lead us to 
remark, that here and there in particular passages a punctuation mark may 
very probably have been added by careful readers of the Bible, ac- 
cording to the directions of the fathers. Thus, 6. g., we see that two 
very ancient MSS., neither of which is divided{throughout by punctua- 
tion marks, in that /ocus vezatus, John 1:3, have a period after χωρὶς 
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, according to the usage of the Alexandrian 
fathers.? 

When we call to mind the seriousness with which Epiphanius charg- 
ed this division of the clauses with blasphemy and Chrysostom with her- 


1 Comment. in Ep. ad Ephesios. ad ἢ. 1. “Dupliciter legendum, ut caritas vel 
cum superioribus vel inferioribus copuletur. Cum superioribus ita: ut essemus 
sancti et immaculati coram ipso in caritate, et postea sequatur predestinans nos... 
cum inferioribus autem sic: in caritate predestinans nos in adoptionem filiorum 
per Jesum ‘Christam in ipsum. Differentiam vero Greci sermonis προορίσας 
et ὀρισϑέντος Latinus sermo non explicat.” 

5 Comment. in Ep. ad Philem. y. 4, 5. ‘““Ambigue vero dictum, utrum gratias 
agat Deo suo semper, an memoriam ejus faciat in orationibus suis semper. Et 
utrumque intelligi potest.’’ 

3 These are Codex Alexandrin. and Cantabrigiens. See Herbert Marsh's (now 
ee of Landaff) Notes and additions to Michaelis’ Intreduction, Vol. I. p. 456, 
AST. 


BOOKS OF THE N. TEST. 147 


esy—when we recollect the ancient dispute respecting 2 Cor. 4: 4, we 
perceive the reason why no scholar or grammarian presumed to point 
the New Testament throughout. He might very easily, contrary to his 
intentions, favor an error in doctrine or involve himself in controversies 
which he would rather avoid. ‘Thus, as this business was encompassed 
with so many difficulties, it was postponed to another period. 


§ 44. 


It was however a very difficult task for a reader who was not possess- 
ed of considerable learning to read the Bible in the public assemblies 
properly and intelligibly without marks of division ; and even in pri- 
vate reading, some assistance was desirable. To obviate the inconve- 
nience which was felt, the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius conceived the 
idea of making a division xara στίχους, and this method was soon ex- 
tensively adopted.! 

The plan which he introduced was to place just so many words in 
one line, as, in order to express the sense clearly, should be read without 
any pause. We will present an example from the celebrated frag- 
ment of the Pauline Epistles which Wetstein has designated by the 
letter H.* The passage is Titus 2:2, 3. 


WPEZSBYTAS NH@®AAIOYTE EINAI 
ΣΕΗΝΟΥΣ 
ΣΩΦΡΟΝΑ͂Σ 
YIAINON TAS TH TWETE! 
Til ATAMA 
TPESBY MAAS ὩΣΑΥΊΩΣ 
EN KATASTHMAT! IEPOTPEMELS 
MH ALABOAOTS 
MH ΟΝ TIOAAR AEAOTARMEN AS 
KAAOAIAASK AAOTS. 
This he called στιχηδὸν γράψαι, and this way of writing στέχομέτ- 


giav. At the end of each biblical book was marked the number of 
Stichoi it contained. 

He finished the Pauline Epistles in this way in the year 462, for he 
himself in speaking of Paul’s death in the Prolegomena to his Epistles, 
incidentally states this to have been the time from the birth of Christ 
to hisown days. Soon after, he commenced dividing the Acts and the 
Catholic Epistles also in the same way. We do not however possess any 
treatise which gives an account of his procedure as to the Gospels; it may 
have perished or may lie unnoticed in the libraries. The idea appears 


51 He describes his project himself in a treatise which Laur. Alex. Zacagni 
has published in the Collec. Mon. Vet: Eccles. Grec. Rame. 1698, 4. and Gal- 
landus in Biblioth. Patr. et Antiq. Scriptor. Tom. X. Venet. 1774. fol. 


2 Biblioth. Coislinian. Montfauc. p. 259. I have corrected some mistakes which 
the copyist made in the division. 


3 Zacagni Collect. Monum. Vet. p. 537. Galland. Biblioth. Patr. T. X. p. 
250. 


. 
148 ALTERATIONS IN THE 


oa 

to have been suggested to him by the so called στεχηρεῖς βίβλοι of the 
Old Testament, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Solomon’s 
Song, which had long been so written.' : 
, He put this plan in execution in order to secure perspicuity in public 
readiug according to his own mode of dividing the clauses.* And in- 
deed the necessity of some such aid to the unlearned was so clearly seen 
that the Euthalian division was very extensively adopted or imitated. 
In Egypt, where it appeared under the patronage of the patriarch, to Ὁ 
whom it was dedicated, it could not fail of a favorable reception ; but 
elsewhere also it met with so many patrons, that we are now in posses- 
sion of stichometrical MSS. of every country and Recension.?: The 
greater part of them do not indeed retain the Stzchot ; but they contain 
a catalogue of them at the end of every book; a convincing proof that 
they are copies of stichometrical MSS. ‘This circumstance is of use 
in determining the age of the MSS. which were the originals of such 


copies. 
It sometimes bappens too, that besides the number of the στίχων, that 


of the ῥημάτων likewise is given. In all MSS. the number of ῥημά-- 
τῶν is not much larger than that of the oz/ywy; it would therefore be 


1 Suiceri Thesaur. V. «ΖΦ τιχηρά, p. 1020. 
2 Κατὰ τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ συμμετρίαν πρὸς εὔσημον ἀνάγνωσιν. Zacagni Mon. Vet. p. 


409. 419. 

3 Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, has appended to his Chronography 
a list of the Stichoi in each of the books of the New Testament. (Montfaucon 
Biblioth. Coisliniana. p. 204. Millius Prolegom. in New Testament n. 1030.) 
The following MSS. are written stichometrically, viz. Cod. D. Cantabrig. Evang. 
et Act., Cod. D. Epistol. Claromont., E. Sangermanens. ΕἸ. Coislinian., E. Actor. 
Laudianus, HI. Cod. G. Evangel. Harleian. 5684, Cod. G. Actor, et Epist. Cath. 
Cardin. Passionei. 72. The following, and probably many others which have not 
been examined as to this point, have at least the number of Stéchoz subjoined at 
the end: Wetstein’s No. 9. of the Gospels, and 13, 35, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, (in 
Mill. Lawdian. 1,} 55, 61, 104,116, 117.—Acts and Cath. Ep. 30. Paul. 36.—Acts 
Cath. Ep. 25. Paul. 31.—Paul. 46, 47.—Acts and Cath. Ep.17. Paul. 18.— 
Acts, Cath. Ep. 33. Paul. 39.—Paul. 65. in Griesbach. In Matthwi, who has 
omitted to notice the circumstance in the description of his MSS., the following 
have a list of Stichoi at the end of each book ; viz. d, k, p, z, of the Gospels; a, 
m,n, g, of the Epistles. In Birch: Vat. 304, 360, 356. Urbino-Vat. 2, Barberin. 
10, 12, 13, 208. Basilidian. XXII. Escurial. 9,10, 12. Of the Acts, Vat. 367. 
Pio-Vat.50. Of the Epistles Augustinian. 1, 2. Vat. 360, 367. Alez.-Vat. 29. 
Urbino-Vat. 3. Florentine MSS. (on the authority of Pére Lami): the New 
Testament in Bibl. D. Marci Dominic. Gospels, Bibl. D. Marc. Dom. and Lau- 
rentian. Plut. VI.n.15. Plut. VI. n.16. Plut. VI. 33. Gospels in Biblioth. B. 
Marie, and D. Marc. ex hered. Nicol. de Nicoliis. Acts and Epistles in Bib- 
lioth. Laurent. Plut. IV. n. 32. and Biblioth. S. Maria Benedictin. MSS. in the 
Royal Library at Vienna: Gospels, V. VI. 4uctuar. Forlos. XVI. Supplem. Kol- 
lar—Lambec. XXXI. Epistles, Lambec. XXXIV.—-XV.Forlos. V. Kollar.—Lambec. 
XXXVII.—Lambec. XXXV.—Lambee. XX XVI.— XIX. Forlos. X. Kollar. The 
Gospels n. 9 and 48 in Wetstein have both ῥήματα and στίχους together ; so Bar- 
berin. 12. and in Birch. Basilidian. XXII. Escurial. 9 and 12. Comp. Richard Si- 
mon’s Hist. Crit. du Texte du Nouv Testament, c. 32. Salmas. Proleg.in Solin. on 
the last page. ΑΒ far as I know, ῥήματα are marked only in the Gospels. May 
it not be that Euthalius divided the Gospels stichometrically, and that some one 
else who adopted this division called his Stichoz, ῥήματα The transcribers, in 
order not to give these lines one name in the Gospels and another in the other 
books, may afterwards have changed the word ῥγματα into στίχοις. Hence in 
some MSS. there were στέχον and in others ῥήματα, and finally both ῥγματα and 
στίχοι got into the copies together. 


* 
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST. 149 


erroneous to regard the ῥήματα as words. They can hardly be any- 
thing but clauses like the στίχοι ; and it would seem that the latter 
were called in some countries by a different name—that they were de- 
nominated ῥήματα. Now copyists who had more than one MS. before 
them to collate, copied the ῥήματα from one and the στίχους from the 
other together, without understanding what they were doing. Nor must 
we be surprised that the number of the Stichoz is not given alike in dif- 
ferent MSS. or that the number of στίχων and ῥημάτων does not ex- 
actly agree. A MS. had more or less clauses in its text according as it 
belonged to this or that recension, and thence this disagreement neces- 
sarily resulted. 


§ 45. 


We indeed know when Stichometry arose, viz. in the middle of the | 


5th century, but we do not know when it ceased. How it ceased and 
how it suggested the idea of a regular system of punctuation, we are 

informed by a fine critical document, the Codex Cyprius or Colbert 5149, 
now N. 63 in the Library of France, in Wetstein K. 

The stichometrical mode of writing left more than half the space 
unoccupied and made MSS. unnecessarily costly and cumbrous. In 
order to gain room and yet not lose the Stichoi, a point was placed after 
every Stichos and the MS. was written continuously as formerly. 

It is thus that the Cyprian Codex is written. After a Stichos, or af- 
ter as many words as are to be read at once or in a single breath in read- 
ing correctly, a point is placed, without any reference to the principles 
of grammatical division or the rules of punctuation. We see this very 
clearly in the specimen in Montfaucon : Ὁ δὲ ἐγερϑεὶς. παρέλαβε τὸ 
παιδίον. καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἦλϑεν εἰς γῆν ᾿Ισραήλ. ᾿“΄κούσας 
δὲ. ὅτε “ρχέλαος βασιλεύει ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿γουδαίας. ἀντὶ ‘Howdov tov πα- 
τρὸς αὐτοῦ. ἐφοβήϑη ἐχεῖ ἀπελϑεῖν. χρηματισϑεὶς δὲ. . .. Matt. 2: 
21, 22.1 

This, as every one will perceive, is strictly stichometrical ; but so 
completely ungrammatical, that no one could be tempted to call it punc- 
tuation. 

_ Yet from this originated continuous and regular punctuation. Intel- 
ligent persons naturally disliked such a method of division, and began 
to improve it and insert regular marks of punctuation. For, that sev- 
eral attempted this independently of each other, is clear as well from 
the dissimilarity prevailing in their arrangement of clauses, as from the 
difference in the marks themselves which occur in the MSS. There 
are MSS. which employ a cross instead of a period; as Cod. Lor 2861, 
now No. 62 in the Library of France, and Cod. Vat. 354, also Cod. ἃ 
in Matthei. Others use it instead of almost all the punctuation marks, 
as Vatic. 1067, Colbert. 700. The Codex Vatic. 351 almost always 
makes use of two points one above the other, instead of punctuation 
marks. The division is made in a different manner in the beautiful 
Basle MS. E, in which a point at the top of a letter denotes a period, at 
the bottom, a comma, and in the middle a semicolon, which according 


1 Montfaug. Paleogr. Gree. L. III. c. 6. p. 232. 


΄ 


150 ALTERATIONS IN THE 


to Isidore of Seville is the regular system of punctuation.! Others 
have, besides the point, the comma, as Cod. V. in Matthei. 

In this business the commentaries of the fathers upon doubtful pas- 
sages seem to have been made use of, by those copyists or grammarians 
who went to work with care. 

But through whom and where all this took place we can the less ea- 
sily determine, because it took place only gradually and imperceptibly. 
Itis indeed true that in the 10th century a regular system of punctuation 
had been introduced. It is no less true, that it is met with in MSS. of the 
New Testament which belong to the 9th century. Nor does it seem to 
me that he who should even maintain that it sometimes occurred in MSS. 
of the 8th century, would encounter any incontrovertible arguments 
against his position. 


§ 46. 


The accents are far older than regular punctuation in the writings 
of the New Testament ; and in those of the Old Testament, they exist- 
ed still earlier thanin the New. 

In the fourth century and probably before, certain persons, tevé¢, had 
already furnished the sacred books of the Old Testament with accents. 
Epiphanius tells us this at the commencement of his work ITegi μέτρων. 
καὶ σταϑμῶν, and also, in the same place, names all the accents, ὀξεῖα, 
δασεῖα, βαρεῖα, ψιλή, ‘&c. with which the Bible had been decorated. 
The writing of the accents he calls στέζεον κατὰ προσῳδίαν. 

It is possible that the books of the New Testament also were sometimes 
thus early furnished with accents, but it was Euthalius who brought the 
accents into general use along with stichometry. He informs us in the 
preface to his stichometrical edition of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 
that he had also written them κατὰ προσῳδίαν 3 Montfaucon, there- 
fore, was unnecessarily troubled in respect to the antiquity of ‘the sti- 
chometrical MSS. Claromont. D Epist. Paul. and Coislinian. H, and 
need not, in order to sustain their credit, have resorted to the supposition 
that the accents were added by a later hand. 

The general notion respecting the late use of the accents in the New 
Testament, is derived from profane criticism, and has occasioned inac- 
curate opinions respecting several documents. 

Nothwithstanding, even after the time of Euthalius, copyists frequent- 
ly omitted the accents in stichometrical MSS., for convenience’ sake or 
for other reasons. 

' ἰώ, 


ΧΩ 


The books of the New Testament in MSS. have various titles and 
subscriptions, which, among the minor circumstances in relation to the 
text, are not unworthy of our attention. The first book is sometimes 
superscribed : To κατὰ Mardaiov εὐαγγέλιον, or: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ 


1 Ἰβιάου. Ηϊβραΐθπβ. Drigener, 1. 6519; 


2 Evayyos ἐμοί γε; τὴν τε τῶν πραξέων βίβλον ἅμα καὶ καϑολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν 
ἀναγνῶναΐτε κατὰ προσῳδίαν, κι τ. ἡ. Zacagni, p. 409. Galland, T. X. p. 201. 


BOOKS OF THE N. TEST. . 181 


“Ματϑαῖον, Κατὰ Mardaiov ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον, 10 ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον 
τοῦ κηρύγματος Murdaiov τοῦ ἀποστόλου, &e. 

ΟΥ̓ what date are these superscriptions? The freedom used in re- 
gard to them leads us at once to suspect that they did not come from 
the author himself. This is very evident in regard to the Epistles of 
Paul. He certainly would not have written upon his letters: ‘The first 
to the Corinthians, The second to the ‘Thessalonians, &c. Such an 
enumeration could have been made only at the time when the Epistles 
began to be collected together. 

Marcion, who acknowledged Luke’s Gospel under certain modifica- 

tions as his own, affixed no name to it at all. So says Tertullian, and 
then proceeds: “‘ Would it indeed have been very much out of the way, 
if he had contrived a new title for it, after altering the contents accord- 
ing to his fancy? How can we acknowledge a work which dares not 
lift up its head, which evinces so little confidence that it does not claim 
credit by an avowal of its author ?”’! 
_ And now in order to confute him, he does not, as would perhaps be 
expected, maintain that Matthew and Luke prefixed their names to the 
Gospels themselves ; but relies upon the testimony of apostolical church- 
es, and of those which were connected with them by religious agree- 
ment, which from the publication up to that time had declared Luke to 
be the author.” 

Just so when Marcion altered the superscription of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians and gave it the title, 70 the Laodiceans,—he appeals against 
him to the declaration of the churches, according to which the Epistle 
was directed to the Christians at Ephesus.® 

It is therefore extremely probable that the titles were prefixed by the 
churches to which these writings were sent, and when the latter were 
united in one Codex the titles were retained. 

Chrysostom asserts without limitation, that not one of the Evangelists 
subjoined his name. ‘‘ Moses,” says he in his first Homily on the Epis- 
tle to the Romans, “ wrote five books, and prefixed his name to neither ; 
nor did those who related events after him; neither did Matthew, nor 
John, nor Mark, nor Luke. But Pau] mentions himself by name—and 
why? As the former wrote for those who were with them, it was un- 
necessary to annex their naines; but Paul wrote his Epistles while at 
a distance,’”’ &c.* 

Yet this same father so far makes an exception in respect to Matthew 
as to assert, that he himself prefixed the designation Gospel to his 
book.® This statement is so natural, so consistent with the purpose of 
Matthew and with the circumstances in which he wrote, as we have 
shown in its proper place,—his work is so completely a book of tidings ~ 
respecting the Messiah, in other words a Gospel, thatthe Apostle could 
not announce it better, or more effectually induce the inhabitants of 
Palestine to read and ponder it, than by writing at the head of it: 
ETYATTEAION. 


1 L. IV. Adv. Marcion. c. 2. 2 L, IV. Adv. Marcion. c. 5. 

3 L. V. Adv. Marcion. c. 11. 

4 Richard Simon. Hist. Crit. du Texte du N. T. ο, 2. 

5 Homil. I. in Matt. Praef. Ζιὰ τοῦτο εὐαγγέλιον τὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκάλεσεν, κι τ. he 


— 1582 ALTERATIONS IN THE a 


re 

When afterwards other writings of similar purport too 
with this, Christians, in order to prevent confusion, added t 
εὐαγγέλιον---κατὰ Marduiov. Thename εὐαγγέλεον 
Matthew to the rest, as the similarity in contents seemed to justi 
the designation. "ΤῸ these, too, in order to distinguish them, it was ἢ 
cessary to add the name of the writer, κατὰ Magzor, κατὰ “ουκᾶν. 

Thus the oldest fathers cite them, not as the Gospel of Matthew, or 
of Mark, but according to Matthew, according to Mark.' For these 
writings were not regarded as separate works, which in different direc- 
tions conspired to the same end, but as parts of one whole, which were 
indeed distinct as respected the writers, but united to represent a single 
subject. It is for this reason that the ancients often speak as if there 
was but one Gospel. They call it a guadri-form Gospel, or the one by 
four, &c.? 

The ancients took care to repeat the title at the end of a roll or book, 
so that if the beginning, which was most exposed to injury, suffered any 
damage, information respecting the author and title of the work might 
be found at the end. This is the case also in the Herculanean MSS.? 
Hence arose the subscriptions to the books of the New Testament, 
which were originally only repetitions of the superscription or title : 6. g. 
εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Mardaioy, Παύλου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐπιστολή, and 
sometimes only πρὸς “Ρωμαίους, πρὸς Κορινθίους, α΄, β', &c. 

Such perhaps was the character of these titles and subscriptions for 
some centuries. But when the fathers composed commentaries on the 
New Testament, they began to pay attention to the time and the his- 
torical circumstances in which individual books were written. ‘Thus 
Chrysostom and Theodoret, in the prefaces to their Expositions of the 
Pauline Epistles, have inferred, from a comparison of various passages — 
in them with each other and with the Acts, the place and circumstances 
in which they were written. . ΄ 

The author of the Synopsis which is commonly ascribed to St. Atha- 
nasius, gives the following places as those in which Paul’s Epistles were 
written ; τὴν πρὸς “Ῥωμαίους ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ Kootvdou, τὴν πρὸς Κορ. 
α΄. ἐπιστέλλει. .«.. ἀπὸ ᾿Πφέσου τῆς ᾿ “σίας, τὴν πρὸς Κορ. β'.. . .. 


1 Thus Irenaeus cites τὸ κατὰ Aovuay εὐαγγέλιον. L. II]. Adv. Haeres. ec. 5. 


n. 8. Clem. Alex. L. I. Strom. ᾿Εν τῷ κατὰ Mardaior εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ 
τῷ κατὰ Aovudy. p. 341. and 340. Sylb. 


2 Ignat. Epist. ad P 
καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις σ᾽ 


delph. ὃ 6. Προσφυγῶν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡἧς σαρπὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
9 πρεσβυτηρίῳ τῆς ἑκκλησίας. Irenaeus L. III. Adv. Haer. 
ce. 11. Τετράμορφον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι. Origen. Comm. in Joann. Kal 
τὸ ἀληϑῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἔστε εὐαγγέλιον. Ed. Huet. Colon. T. II. p. 91. Dial: 
contra Marc. Seet. [. p..9. Wetsten. Evayyeduotal μὲν τέσσαρες, εὐαγγέλιον δὲ 
ἐν τ ov» & O8 τέσσαρες περὶ ἑνὸς λέγουσιν, οὐκέτι τέσσαρες, ἀλλὰ ἕν. Villoison 
compares with this the custom of the Greeks in not saying “Ὅμερος τοῦ Ζηνω-- 

ὅτου, τοῦ Aguordgeyov, but x0 it Ζηνώδοτον, κατὰ ° Agioragyox. Praefat. in 
Scol. Venet. in Iliad. p. XXII ΠΕ μαι thinks that there is an ellipsis : εὖ-- 
αγγέλιον, i.e. Inoov Χριστοῦ, so that a second genitive would have been improper 
and κατὰ Mardatoy was said and written. LEinleit.indas N. Τ. III. Th. ὃ 298. 


3 John Winkelmann’s “ Nachrichten von den neuesten Herculanischen Ent- 
deckungen an H. Fuessli.” Dresden. 1764. p.51.2. See also Herculanensium 
Voluminum T. I. Neapol. 1793. fol. Col. XXXVIII. p. 193. and Tom. I. 1809. 
Col. XI. p. 25. 


BOOKS OF THE N. TEST, 152) 


Adee ἀπὸ Maxsdoviac, πρὸς Γαλάτας . .. . ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ ‘Po- 
so Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, all from 
= 2 _ The first to the Thessalon. ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ ᾿Αϑηνῶν; the sec- 
on 1d, ἀπὸ “Ῥώμης again ; that to the Hebrews ano “ταλίας" the first to 
imothy ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας" the second ἀπὸ Ῥώμης" that to Titus ἀπὸ 
“Νικοπόλεως. 

Short observations of this kind, it would seem, were sometimes writ- 
ten at the end of the Epistles, and thus extended the subscriptions. 
Some additional scraps of erudition in regard to the Gospels and other 
books, were disposed of in the same way. 

But the subscriptions did not obtain a definite form till the middle of 
the fifth century. Euthalius then gave them such a form in his sticho- 
metrical edition of the New Testament. In fact, (and it ought not to 
have escaped the notice of the editor of Euthalius, ) he has literally 
transcribed the summaries which are prefixed to the respective books 
from the Athanasian Synopsis, and with them likewise the places assign- 
ed to Paul’s Epistles, as we have quoted them above. But in his sub- 
scriptions he attributes very different places from these to several Epis- 
tles, as being those from which they were sent. 

In some of them, it is true, he does not differ from the Synopsis, as, 
e. g. in the following : τιρὸς “Ρωμαίους é ἐγράφη, ἀπὸ Ko ορίνϑου διὰ Doi- 
βης τῆς διακόνου. στίχοι. LK. πρὸς ]Ταλάτας ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Ρώμης. 
στίχοι. ρἕγ. πρὸς ᾿ Θεσσαλονιεχεῖς a, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿ϑηνῶν. στίχοι. θὲ. 
προς ‘Eqeotous ἐγραφὴ απὸ Ῥώμης διὰ Τυχίκου. στίχοι. τιβ. προς 
Titov τῆς Konrov ἐκκλησίας πρωτον ἐπίσκοπον χειροτονηϑέντα ἐγρά- 
gy ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως τῆς Maxedoviag. στίχων. of. In others, howev- 
er, he varies from him; as, e. g. πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς β. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ 
᾿ἀϑηνῶν. στίχοι. gar. πρὸς Tio Pov α΄. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας, ἡ- 
τις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Dov »γίας τῆς ΤΙακατιανῆς. στίχων. σλ. He comes 
nearer in the following : πρὸς Λορινϑίους β΄. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων 
διὰ Titov καὶ Aovxa. στίχοι. ps. He must have found notices of 
these facts somewhere else, and probably it was in the biblical MSS. 
themselves. The subscriptions retained this form ever after, and spread 
in this condition from MS. to MS. 


§ 48. 


The New Testament was also divided into cert 
pear under various names. The custom of reading it in the public as- 
semblies after the Law and the Prophets, must have led to such divis- 
ions. For this purpose the Law and Prophets had already been divided 
into Parashoth and Haphtaroth, and it ¢ t be long before a similar 
course would be taken with the New ' ~The division into 


n portions, which ap- 


The ‘Chegtidn fathers called the Jewish sections for reading, Perico- 
pae: this expression Justin Martyr ‘makes use of in citing the propheti- 
cal books.! It occurs also in Clement of Alexandria :? and the same 


1 Dialog. cum Tryph.c. 65. c. 72. 2 Clem. Alex. L. III. Strom. c. 4. 
20 


154 ALTERATIONS IN THE 


writer also calls the larger sections of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles 
περικοπαί." ἷ 

Thus the Pericopae were nothing but avayywouare, church-lessons, 
or sections of the New Testament which were read in public after Mo- 
ses and the Prophets. 

In the third century there occurs another division into κεφάλαια. 
Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of these on occasion of the disputes 
respecting the Apocalypse. “‘Some,” says he, “ went through the whole 
book, chapter by chapter, endeavoring to show that it contained no 
sense,’’? 

In the fifth century, Euthalius presents anew a division into chapters, 
which has been regarded as his own invention. He himself, however, 
claims only to have composed τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκϑεσιν, the summa- 
ries of the chapters in the Acts and the Catholic Epistles.? In respect 
to the Epistles of Paul, not even these are his, but, as he himself says, 
they originated with one of the wisest of the fathers and followers of 
Christ, and he himself only incorporated them with his stichometrical 
New Testament. Thus the chapters must have existed before Eutha- 
lius, as the father alluded to had composed summaries of them. But 
how ancient they are we cannot readily determine.° 

The Euthalian κεφαλαία are distinguished from the Pericopae or 
church-lessons by their length. The Jews had divided the Law into 53 
Parashoth, according to the number of the Sabbaths there may be in a 
year. It was nearly in the same way that the Acts, the Catholic and 
Pauline Epistles were divided according to the Alexandrine ritual, which 
Euthalius follows in his stichometrical edition; viz. into 56 Pericopae, 
three more than the χυριακαὶ ἡμέραι or Sundays, probably for three 
festivals, which were perhaps observed at Christmas, Easter, and Whit- 
suntide. The Gospels naturally had the same number of Pericopae. 
Such was the case in ancient times in Asia, for Justin says, that Chris- 
tians there assembled for prayer and reading the Scriptures only on 
Sunday, ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέρᾳφε The whole New Testament being 
thus’ divided into so few sections, they were necessarily very large, and 
hence in Euthalius a Pericopae sometimes comprehends four, five, and 
even six chapters. 

We have spoken as yet of the chapters of the Acts and the Epistles 
only. In the Gospels we meet with two kinds of κεφάλαια, large and 


4 Strom. L, 1V.¢.9. L. VIL. c. 13. μεγίστης δ᾽ ovens τῆς περικοπῆς. 1 Cor. 
. 1. seq. 


2 Euseb. H. E. L. VII. ο. 25. 
3 Zacagni Monum. Inedit. p. 477. 


4 Id. loc. cit. p. 528. καϑ' ἑκάστην δὲ συντόμως τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν τοῖς ἐξῆς προ-- 
τάξομεν τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔχϑεσιν ἑνὶ τῶν σοφωτάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχριστῶν πα-- 
τέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην. 

5 In Euthalius’ Prolegomena to Paul there is a statement of the period from 
the death of the Apostle to the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and then Eu- 
thalius pursues the chronological reckoning down to his own days. The infer- 
ence has been attempted from this, that the author of these chapters lived under 
these two Emperors. But Euthalius compiled sometimes from one source and 
sometimes from another, and we can infer only the antiquity of this statement 
concerning Paul’s death. 


BOOKS OF THE N. TEST. 155 


small. The small are the Ammonian which Eusebius projected, and 
according to which he composed his ten Canons, that he might be able 
to designate in the Monotessaron of Ammonius what belonged to each 
Evangelist. In his letter to Carpianus, he speaks respecting their use 
and respecting the nature of his ten Canons; and calls his sections 
sometimes xegaiava and sometimes megexonal. Matthew contains 355 
of them, Mark 236, Luke 342, and John 282. 

The other chapters, called the larger from their length, are entirely 
independent of the former. Matthew contains 68, Mark 49, Luke 83, 
and John only 18, There are very few MSS. which have not both to- 
gether. 

The author of the larger chapters is unknown, and their date can on- 
ly be conjectured. In the fourth century Caesarius, probably the broth- 
er of Gregory of Nazianzen, was acquainted only with the Ammonian 
chapters. ‘‘ We have four Gospels,” says he, “ which contain one 
thousand one hundred and sixty-two chapters,” &c.'_ Epiphanius in 
his Ancoratus has exactly repeated this passage of Caesarius,” which 
gives the number of the Ammonian, but not of the larger chapters. 
Chrysostom, too, knew nothing of the latter. In his expositions of Mat- 
thew and John he frequently concludes his discourse in the middle of 
the larger chapters or wherever it happens, and coincides with them on- 
ly when the Evangelist’s history itself exhibits so abrupt a transition as 
could not but be regarded. 

But in Euthymius and Theophylact the larger chapters are the com- 
mon ones. ‘Though, however, they are not discovered in any older fa- 
thers, this is not the earliest trace of their existence. We find them in 
MSS. which evidently reach back far beyond the times of these two 
commentators. 

Their appropriate name was τέτλος. ‘‘ The titles and chapters,” says 
Suidas, “ differ; Matthew has 68 titles and 355 chapters; Mark 49 ti- 
tles and 336 chapters; Luke 83 titles and. 342 chapters; John 18 titles 
and 232 chapters.” What he here calls chapters are the Ammonian 
κεφάλαια, and the rirdoc are what we have denominated the larger'chap- 
ters, as we see from the number. This we are told also by an old docu- 
ment, viz. Codex L, or 2861, now 62 in the royal library : τὸ κατὰ Mat- 
ϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἔχει τίτλους én. καὶ κεφάλαια τνέ. τὸ κατὰ Maoxov 
εὐαγγέλιον τίτλους μή. κεφάλαια σλὸ. τὸ κατὰ «Δουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον ἔ- 
yee τίτλους my. κεφάλαια τμβ. τὸ κατὰ ᾿Τωάννην εὐαγγέλιον ἔχει τίτ-- 
λους en. κεφάλαια oda.* The errors which occur here are easily cor- 
rected and do not properly affect at all the point under consideration. 

They were probably called τίτλον because to each of these chapters 
a summary or inscription, Titudus, was prefixed. That they came from 

ν -- fi 


1 Τέσσαρα ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα δύο. Gal- 
land. Biblioth. Patr. T. VI. Caesar. Dialog. I. Respons. 39. 

2 Epiphan. oy.’ Ayzvewr. p. 490. Ed. Basil. Suicer. Thesaur. V. κεφάλαιον. 
There should indeed be 1165, but some κεφάλαια are controverted. 

3 Τίτλος διαφέρει κεφαλαίου. Καὶ ὃ μὲν Marduios ἔχει τίτλους ξη. κεφάλαια 
«νε΄. ὅτε Μάρκος τίτλους μη. κεφάλαια τμβ. ὃ δὲ ᾿Ιωάννης τίτλους i. κεφάλαια 
ολβ. 

4 Rich. Simon. Hist. Crit. du Texte du Ν. T. ο. 33. 


156 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


that pious follower of Christ to whom Euthalius ascribes τὴν τῶν xeq a- 
λαίων ἔκϑεσιν in the Acts and Epistles, we may rather conjecture than 
assert. ‘They are found very much alike in the MSS. of all countries 
and recensions. 

Andreas of Cappadocia divides the Apocalypse into 24 λόγους and 
72 κεφαλαίια. 

In the church-lessons, to return to them once more, various altera- 
tions took place. As festival days multiplied, the old division could no 
longer subsist, and in many churches the Pericopae became shorter. 
At last, as ceremonial observances increased, only certain passages, and 
these sornetimes very short, were selected from the Gospels, the Acts 
and the Epistles. An entire Codex of this kind was called éxAoyadtov ; 
_ one of the Gospels only, evayyedcorageov ; and one of the other books, 
πραξαποστολος. 

This change seems to have taken place among the Latins much ear- 
lier than among the Greeks. Credible witnesses testify to the existence 
of this arrangement among the former about the middle of the fifth cen- 
tury ;! a period when nothing of the kind can be discovered among the 
latter. The term πραξαπόστολος does indeed frequently occur in the 
Typicum of St. Sabas,* who died in the beginning of the fifth century. 
But the Greeks do not deny that this T’ypicum or monastic ritual is not 
his own,—that the latter perished during the incursions of the barbari- 
ans, and was rewritten by John Damascenus from recollection.? John 
Damascenus lived about the middle of the eighth century ; and I am 
not aware of any earlier notice of Lectionaria among the Greeks. 

Our present chapters, it is well known, come from Cardinal Hugo de 
Saint Cher, who composed a Concordance in the twelfth century, and 
for convenient reference divided the Bible into small sections at his 
pleasure. They are now generally adopted in the editions of the He- 
brew and Greek text. 

The verses come from Robert Stephens, who introduced them for the 
first time in his edition of the New Testament in 1551. The place 
where this was printed is not stated, but it is decorated with the olive 
of Stephens. ἱ , 


CHAPTER VI. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


8 49. 


The changes which occurred at different periods in the circumstan- 
ces and appearance of the text, are so many marks by which to discov- 


1 Bingham Orig. Ecclesiast. L. XIV. c. III. ὃ 3. 


2 Leo Allatius De Libris Eccles. Graecorum Diss. I. p. 35. in the Biblioth. 
Graec. of Fabricius, Appendix to the fifth Book. Hamb. Edit. 


3 Id.].c. p. 4.5. Suicer Thesaur. V. τυπικόν. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 157 


er the age of MSS. Though they seldom enable us to pronounce de- 
cisively as to their precise age, yet we can generally infer from them 
whether a MS. is or is not as old as is asserted. For this reason we 
shall find no better place to speak particularly of these valuable bequests 
of antiquity through which the text has descended to us, than here, im- 
mediately after the investigations which comprise the facts that are the 
basis of our judgment respecting them. 

We have, too, other aids in this matter, as e. g. a comparison of the 
Church-calenders and Diptychs with the festivals which are frequently 
noted in connexion with the lessons in the MSS.—also the observation 
of marginal glosses, postscripts of the calligraphists, or other additions 
which may have been made to any particular MS. But these are indi- 
vidual circumstances which differ in different cases, and therefore can- 
not be considered and reckoned as general characteristics. ‘They are 
therefore surrendered to the individual capacity and penetration of crit- 
ics, some of whom will derive more and some less advantage from them. 

Certain historical circumstances which we subjoin may be useful in 
determining the age of MSS. written in Alexandria. Strabo names two 
cities in which copies of MSS. were made for sale, εἰς πρᾶσιν, viz. Rome 
and Alexandria;! probably the former dealt in Latin and the latter in 
Greek literature. 

The Alexandrian characters possessed some peculiarities, but we are 
not informed in what they consisted. Among the calligraphists of this 
city appear some illustrious names ; e. g. Philodemus, who became blind 
in the practice of his art ;? Hierakas, who followed his employment with 
his eyesight unimpaired when over eighty years old ;* and others down 
to the times of the Arabians. But, as these times of decay came on, 
the Greeks withdrew from so laborious a mode of gaining subsistence, 
preferring rather to harass the country in the capacity of overseers, col- 
lectors, and soldiers, and gave up calligraphy to the natives or Copts, as 
well as all other operations of industry and manual labor.® On this ac- 
count however they were regarded with such hatred, that, after the con- 
quest of Egypt by the Arabian arms in the year 641, the Copts united 
with the Arabs to expel them totally from the country, and succeeded 
in their endeavour after the capture of Alexandria. 

From this time the Arabians put a stop to the intercourse of Egypt 
with foreign nations, and especially with the dominions of the Greek 
emperor,’ so that the sale of MSS. abroad was rendered impracticable. 


1 Strabo L. XIII. p. 419. Ed. Ina Casaub. Ed. 2da p. 609. 

2 Concil. Constantinop. 1V. Τὸ σύγγραμμα καταρτισάμενος, ἐπὶ παλαιοτάτων 
μὲν τοῦτο χαρτίων γράμμασι ᾿ 4λεξανδρινοῖς, τὴν ᾿ “ρχαϊακὴν ore μάλιστα χειρο-- 
ϑεσίαν μομησάμενος, γράφει. Collect. Labbei. T. V. p. 1004. 

3 Anthol. Graec. H. Grotii. L. VI. Epigr. Juliani Egyptii, 6 and 7. Brunk 
Analecta. T. II. p. 495. 96. 

4 Epiphan. Haeres. L. XVII. § 3. p. 712. Ed. Colon. 


5 clapton Simocatta. L. VIII. p. 215. Cedren. T. I. p. 405, Ed. Par- 
is. 1647. 


6 Renaudot. Hist. Patr. Alexandr. Benjamin. Patr. XX XVIII. p. 164. 


7 Renaudot. Hist. Patr. Alexandr. Chail. Patr. XLVII. p. 206. Isaac. ΧΗ]. p. 
187. Simon Patr. XLII. p. 184. ἣ 


158 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


The destruction of the library, too, at the command of Omar (for this 
is a well authenticated fact,!) entirely deprived the calligraphists of the 
MSS. from which they made their copies, Both occurrences were high- 
ly prejudicial to the art of calligraphy. The first limited the exercise 
of it to the continually decreasing demand within the country itself; 
the other robbed it of the hope of ever again rising to much importance 
even though other circumstances should favor it as before. 

After the Greeks were expelled, there remained only one chapel at 
Alexandria, and a single church with a bishop at Kasser el Shema, de- 
voted to the Greek religious service.2 The numerous churches they had 
possessed the Copts appropriated to themselves. At this period there 
was no demand for Greek copies of the Bible, either for the use of 
churches or of individuals. This state of things lasted from 641 to 
730, when the condition of the Greeks took a more favorable turn, and 
they again obtained a patriarch in the person of Cosmas, together with 
the privilege of undisturbed worship and the possession of many of 
their churches.? Here seems to commence the second period of the 
Greek MSS. of the New Testament written in Egypt. 

No one will expect here a description of all the MSS. which are 
known. This might indeed be required in Prolegomena to a critical 
edition of the New Testament, the extent of the plan of which called 
for such particularity. Here however we are only bound to give infor- 
mation respecting those MSS. to which we have referred in our history 
of the text. 

We divide them into three classes: I. such as were antecedent to 
the practice of stichometry ; II. stichometrical ; and III. such as were 
written after stichometry had become extinct. 


§ 50. 


The oldest MSS. which have come down to us have been, probably 
more from accident than any thing else, designated by the letters A, 
B, and C. 

Cod. B, or Vatic. 1209, contains the Old and New Testament; the 
latter in the following order: Gospels, Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epis- 
tles as far as Heb. 9:14. The Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 
together with the Apocalypse, have been destroyed by time.* 

The MS. is of the finest parchment, with very simple and beautiful 
square letters which are invariably uniform and scarce perceptibly larger 
than the characters in the MS. of Philodemus περὶ μουσικῆς, the first 
of the Herculanean rolls which was unfolded. In other respects, too, 


1 George Keser’s (Prof. and Curator of the Gymnasium.) “ Programm, dber 
die Bibliothek, welche die Araber zu Alexandrien verbrannten.” Freyburg. 
1819. 4. p. 2-6. 


2 Renaudot. Hist. Patr. in Chail. Patr. XLVII. p. 205. Eutych. Alex. Annal. 
T. II. p. 285-9. 


3 Eutych. Annal. loc. cit. Renaudot. Hist. Patr. in Cosma. 


4 | have described and criticised this MS. in a Programm, ‘‘ De antiquitate 
Codicis Vaticani Commentatio.” Friburgi. 1809. 4. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 159 


they resemble them extremely.! The initial letters do not differ at all from 
the rest ; a later hand has written larger initials over the original ones. 

The letters are all equidistant from each other ; no word is separated 
from the rest, and each line appears to be but a single word. Where a 
complete narrative or other long series of sentences terminates, a blank 
space is left of the breadth of a letter or half a letter. 

The MS. has three columns on each page, and when opened presents 
6 columns to the eye, so that we are deceived and think we have a book- 
roll unfolded before us. It would seem as if at that period men were 
just on the point of passing from the use of rolls to that of books, and 
there still remained in the latter some resemblance to their previous 
form. It is therefore much broader than it is long, and in that respect 
resembles no other Greek document except the celebrated fragment of 
Dion Cassius, formerly in the possession of Fulvius Ursinus. 

The MS. had long since faded so much that it was necessary for a 
second hand to retouch the characters with new ink. It would even 
seem that in the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 1491, a third hand under- 
took to remedy the faintness of the second application of ink. The 
very faint characters of the first hand have been preserved untouched 
only where the calligraphist wrote words or whole clauses over a second 
time. The unnecessary pains of retouching what was written over 
twice was spared.” 

So far the characteristics all point to a very high antiquity; but 
they are merely general and determine nothing definite. 

The punctuation marks are by the second hand and occur but sel- 
dom. We may pass through several chapters in the Gospels and Epis- 
tles without finding a single one. Even where at the close of a section 
a space of the breadth of half or the whole of a letter is left blank, no 
period is inserted. They occur more frequently in some chapters of the 
Acts. There are no accents in any place where the first writing ap- 
pears clear and untouched ; they were added by a later hand.3 

The inscriptions or titles are appended as a matter of small impor- 
tance to the upper part of the upper margin in a somewhat smaller 
hand. They are extremely simple, and are found at the top of each 
page throughout the MS.: κατὰ Maritaioy, (sic) xara βϊάρκον, πράξ- 
εἰς ἀποστόλων, ᾿Ιακωβου ἐπιστολὴ, Πέτρου α., Πέτρου β., then προς 
“Ρωμαίους, πρὸς Κορινϑίους, without the name of the author. The 
subscriptions are mere repetitions of the titles; what is additional was 
undoubtedly added by a second hand: after πρὸς “Ῥωμαίους we find 
ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Kogivdou; after πρὸς KogevPiovs β, has been added ἐ- 
γράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων, &c. But even these later additions do not re- 
cognise the Euthalian inscriptions. 

As to the chapters in the Gospels, the Ammonian division is wholly 
wanting, although it was pretty general about the middle of the fourth 


1 Herculanensium Voluminum, quae supersunt. Tom. I. Neapoli mpcexcit. 
ex Reg. Typograph. 


2 I have selected as specimens two of these passages, John 13: 14. Rom. 4: 4. 
A pretty good idea of the general appearance of the Codex may be obtained from 
Blanchin. Evangeliar. Quadrupl. P. L. ad pag. CDXCII. 


3 Hug, De antiquitate Cod. Vatic. commentatio. p. 9-13. 


160 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


century. We will not insist very strongly however on this point. In- 
stead of them there are chapters which we find no where else; in Mat- 
thew 170, Mark 72, Luke 152, and John 80. The Acts of the Apos- 
tles was originally divided only into the Egyptian church-lessons ; anoth- 
er hand afterwards added chapters, but not the Euthalian. To the ori- 
ginal division of the Catholic Epistles, as in the Acts, another has been 
added by a later hand; but neither does this accord at all with that 
made by Euthalius.! 

The division of the Pauline Epistles is wholly without example. It 
is not the case that each Epistle has its separate chapters, but all togeth- 
er are considered as a single book, and the chapters are numbered con- 
tinuously throughout. The Epistle to the Romans ends with the 21st 
chapter; the first to the Corinthians begins with the 22d chapter and 
concludes with the 32d; then the second to the Corinthians begins with - 
the 32d chapter, &c. Not only are all these appearances Ante-Eutha- 
lian, but some of them are of acharacter so ancient that they belong 
very much farther back, and no other trace of them remains. 

Two additional peculiarities merit our attention. The Epistle to the 
Galatians concludes with the 59th chapter ; the next, to the Ephesians, 
commences with the 70th chapter, and then the numbers continue regu- 
larly through Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. ‘The second 
to the Thessalonians ends with the 93d chapter. Now why are the 
chapters from the 59th to the 70th wanting?) Whence this chasm? 
At the end of the second to the Thessalonians we find the explanation. 
We here meet with the Hpistle to the Hebrews; it begins with the 60th 
chapter, proceeds with the 61, 62, 63, and 64, as far as Heb. 9: 14, 
and the rest of the Epistle is lost. We perceive from the numeration of 
the chapters, that the Epistle to the Hebrews originally stood after that 
to the Galatians and had been recently placed farther back ; but so re- 
cently that even the division of the chapters had not yet been altered. 
The new position of this Epistle after the second to the Thessalonians, 
is given to it also in the Canonof Athanasius. ‘This transposition of the 
Epistle was probably made by Athanasius himself out of respect for the 
Romish church, and the MS. must then have been written near this 
period, when the transposition was recent. If, however, it were thus 
placed before the time of Athanasius, the Codex must be assigned to 
amore ancient period. At all events the change had then but just ta- 
ken place; while in the fourth century it had become general. Epi- 
phanius informs us as follows: ‘‘ There are two kinds of biblical MSS. 
Some of them place the Epistle to the Hebrews after the Epistles to 
Timothy, Titus and Philemon ; while others assign it a place after the 
second to the Thessalonians.’”” 

Basil asserts that formerly in Ephes. 1: 1, the words ἐν “Eggo were 
wanting: so the fathers before him declared, and so he found it in an- 
cient MSS. A discussion of this point may be seen in the IId Part, 
( § 121) where we treat of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Our MS. 
must have been therefore an ancient one in the time of Basil; for it 


1 De antiq. Cod. Vat. Comment. p. 19-23. 
2 Epiphan. Haer. XLII. p. 373. Juxta Petav. Colon. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS, 161 
oes not contain the words ἐν “Lge in the text: they are only sub- 
joined in the margin, though indeed by the first hand. 

The first of these circumstances assigns this Codex to an early peri- 
od in the fourth century at least ; and the other to one certainly consid- 
erably antecedent to Basil. 

The MS. evinces by its peculiarities of language, that it was written 
by an Egyptian calligraphist. Instead of συλλήψη, λήψεσϑε, ληφϑη- 
σέται, ἀνελήφϑη ,we find συλλήμψῃ, λήμψεσϑε, λημᾳϑήσεται, ἀνε-- 
λήμφϑη, λημφϑέντα, &c. This peculiarity occurs only in Coptic or 
Graeco-Coptic documents, as in the Graeco-Thebaic litanies of the Bor- 
gian museum, in which ἀντιλήψεως is always written ἀντιλήμψεως 
or ἀντιλύμψεως; 1 in the Alexandrino-Coptic Liturgy, in which εὐμε- 
τάληψις becomes εὐμετάλημψες ;? and in other Coptic fragments, in 
which atuwavor i is written instead of λείψανον ; ἀποκαάλυμιψις instead 
of ἀποκαλυψις.3 

Further, the Vatican Codex always writes εἶπαν for εἶπον, like the 
triglott Rosetta inscription, at the end of the eighth line: συναχϑέντες 
ἐν τῷ ἐν Meugy igow τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ EIILTAN; and the Graeco-The- 
baic fragment of John 7:52 in Georgi : ἀπεκρίϑησαν καὶ ΠΑ͂Ν." 
Just so it has εἶδαν, ἔπεσαν, ἦλϑαν, εἰσῆλϑαν, and ἀνείλατο, ἐξείλατο, 
Acts 14: 10 ἥλατο, διεμαρτύρατο, as we find in an inscription on the 
Memnon of Thebes: ΟΥ̓́Τ ΟΝ EZEDOLTTATO§ also in Luke 9: 
36, ἑώρακαν, and Rom. 16: 7, γέγοναν, as, according to Sextus, the 
Mloeandsiane were accustomed to write, using ἐλήλυϑαν and anelndu- 
ϑαν for ἐληλύϑασι." 

Attention should be paid to these observations, inasmuch as we must 
again recur to them in our judgment respecting other MSS. 

Birch collated the Codex throughout, with the exception of the Gos- 
pels of Luke and John, for the royal Danish edition of the New Tes- 
tament. Of the two Gospels we have excepted, he procured a collation 
which had been made for Bentley. Woide has published in Appendice 
Cod. Alexandrini, the collation of the whole MS. made for Bentley. 
Nor is this publication unnecessary ; for we are very glad to have more 
than one collation of so important a document. 

A (Alexandrin. Mus. Britannic.) contains the Old and New Testa- 
ment. The latter, of which the beginning is destroyed, commences 
with Matt. 25: 6, ἐξέρχεσϑε εἰς τήν... but is thenceforward entire 
with the exception of John 6: 50—8: 52, and 2Cor. 4: 13—12: 2. The 
order of the books is the same as in the Vat. Cod. After the Acts 
come the Catholic Epistles and then Paul; here too the Epistle to.the He- 


brews takes its place after the second to the Thessalonians. Each page 
has two columns. 


4 Georgi Fragm. Evang. 8. Jo. Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum in Append. p. 
ὍΣ: 59. 362. 64. 66. 


2 Asseman. Cod. Eccles. Univ. Liturg. L. VIII. P. V. p. 13. 


3 Mingarelli Agypt. Codd. Reliq. in Bib. Naniana. Fasc. 1. p. LXXXIII. 
This peculiarity i is found in MSS. of Herodotus and has been considered as Io- 
nicism. We here see it to be a characteristic of Alexandrian MSS. 

4 Georgi Fragm. Evang. 8. Jo. p. 32. 

5 Pocoke’s Description of the East. Vol. I. Plat. XXXVIII. 

. § Sextus Empir. Advers. Grammat. I. 20. p. 261. 

, 21 


162 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


The characters are elegant, square and upright ; larger than in the 
Vat. Coder.’ The letters are equidistant from each other and the words 
not separated ; the termination of the words is denoted very rarely by 
a crooked stroke in the top of aletter. Initial letters of larger size are 
found not only at the beginning of every book, but of every section 
however short.' 

The MS. has frequent sections not unlike our verses ; somewhat long- 
er however, as a section never ends before the sentence is completed. 
A blank space of the average length of a single word generally denotes 
the end of a section. 

As respects the punctuation, we might easily fall into a mistake, and 
regard this Codex as a copy of a stichometrical MS. ; yet so written that 
the lines are continuous, the end of a stichos being always denoted by 
a dot: e. g. Acts 11: 6, 7, καὶ εἶδον τὰ τετράποδα τῆς γῆς καὶ τὰ ϑη- 
Gia καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ" καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ" ἤκουσα δὲ φωνῆς λε-- 
γούσης moe’ ἀναστὰς Πέτρε' ϑῦσον καὶ φάγε. There is a very great 
resemblance between the stichoi and these divisions, hundreds of exam- 
ples of which occur in the MS.; but in general it does not recognise 
the divisions μέση and ὑποστιγμή; only using the period, τελδέα, 
throughout at the end of a clause. Each section, even the smallest 
without distinction, occurs invariably with a point at the top of the 
letter. 

The Codex is entirely without accents and aspirates, and in no one 
of its characteristics suits the times of Euthalius. ; 

The inscriptions and subscriptions are very simple: εὐαγγέλεον κατὰ 
Μάρκον; εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Aovuav. These titles repeated form the 
subscriptions. The inscriptions of the Acts and Catholic Epistles on 
the upper margin are almost entirely cut off. The subscriptions are 
Πακωβου ἐπιστολή, Πέτρου α, &c. At the end, after the Epistle of 
Jude, the Acts and Catholic Epistles have a common subscription : 
πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων xai καϑολικαὶ, as though they together 
constituted one book. The subscriptions of the first Pauline Epistles 
are merely πρὸς Ῥωμαίους, πρὸς Kogev ious, &c. The subscrip- 
tions from the Epistle to the Colossians onwards have something addi- 
tional: πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς ἀπὸ Ρώμης, πρὸς Θεοσαλονικεῖς a. ἐγράφη 
ἀπὸ ᾿4ϑηνῶν, πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς β. ἐγράφη ano ᾿“ϑηνῶν, πρὸς 
“EBoatous ἐγράφη ἀπὸ “Ρώμης, πρὸς Τιμόϑεον a. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Aao- 
δικείας, προς Τιμόϑεον β. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ “]αοδικείας, πρὸς Titov γ. ἐ- 
γράφη ano Νικοπόλεως. None of these subscriptions are the same as 
those of Euthalius ; of the latter class two, viz. those of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews and the second to Timothy, contradict Euthalius, whose 
subscriptions are: πρὸς “Lfgaious ἐγράφη ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ππαλίας διὰ Teuo- 


1 The part of the Codex containing the New Testament has been printed in 
these same elegant characters, copied and cast for the purpose. “ Nov. Testam. 
Graec.e Cod. Alexan. qui Londini in Bib. Musei Britan. asservatur, descriptum 
ee Carolo Woide, etc. Londini ex prelo Joh, Nichols ty pis Jacksonianis.”’ 
} - Tol. 

Spohn has edited Woide’s Prolegomena in Germany and corrected Wetstein’s 
collation from this edition. ‘“ G.C. Woidii notitia Cod. Alex. cum variis ejus 
lectionibus, curavit Gott]. Leberecht Spohn.” Lips. 1788. 8vo. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 163 


Pou" στίχοι ψ. γ' πρὸς Ζιμόϑεον͵ β. τῆς ᾿Εφεσίων ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκο- 
πον χειροτονηϑέντα, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ “Ῥώμης. λ. 

As to the chapters, the Gospels have the Ammonian chapters and the 
sections of Eusebius; and they have also the larger chapters which the 
Greeks call τίτλους. A summary of these chapters and tituli is pre- 
fixed to the Gospels, and in the text they are generally denoted by num- 
bers and the corresponding inscription added on the upper margin. 
Thus at Matt. 27: 48, is marked the last chapter, aH, 68, and the in- 
scription on the upper margin is περὲ τῆς αἰτήσεως TOU OOM. . . i. 6. 
σώματος Jyoov. There are thus in Matthew, as usual, 68 chapters, in 
Mark 48, Luke 83, and John 18. Respecting the antiquity of these 
chapters there i is at present some uncertainty, so that we must renounce 
their aid in deciding on the age of this MS. 

In the Acts it has been thought, that in five places there is evidence 
of a division of the books by means of a cross. which is commonly found 
in the Gospels near the numbers of the large chapters.! But the cross 
certainly has not any meaning of this kind when it stands alone. See 
e. g. Luke 1: 15, 8: 35, 9: 5, 13: 28, 18: 8, John 4: 6, 4: 41, where it 
occurs in the middle of the discourse, and even in the middle of a sen- 
tence. How can it denote such a division in these cases? Yet, admit- 
ting that in the five passages pointed out, Acts 3: 1, 4: 3, 8: 26, 10: 1, 
17: 20, it does mark chapters, at any rate they are not the Euthalian. 

_ Two of them, Acts 4: 3, and 17: 20, do not at all coincide with the Eu- 
thalian sections ; and, following Kuthalius, there should be forty instead 
five. 

In the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, as also in the Apocalypse, neith- 
er the chapters nor lessons are marked. Nothing is to be seen of the 
plan and contrivances of Euthalius in the whole MS. The character 
of the punctuation, the total want of accents, the subscriptions of the 
Pauline Epistles, are, on the contrary, evidence that it was written be- 
fore the Euthalian innovations or before the last half of the fifth centu- 
ry, and this evidence is the more weighty as the MS. was written in 
Egypt. 

Its peculiarities of language evince this origin. Mark 12: 40, λήμῳ- 
ονται, 16: 24, λήμψεσϑε. Luke 9.51, 17:34, John 14: 3, 16: 14, 15, 
Acts 1: 22, 2: 98,1 Cor. 12: 28, ἀντιλήμψεις. Philipp. 4: ‘15, δόσεως 
καὶ λήμψεως. Goloss. 3: 24 and Luke 13: 11 ,αἀνακύμιμαι. It is true 
that εἶπαν and similar forms of the second Aorist are not so frequent as 
in the Vatic. Codex; but the copyist has not excluded them entirely : 
as, Luke 19: 39, Acts 1: 24, 6: 2, εἶπαν ; Mark 14: 48, ἐξήλϑατε, Luke 
ΤΕ 54, εἰσήλϑατε, Acts 10: 39, ἐμεῖς τὰ 

Cod. C (n. 9. Regio Parisinus ,) has also been called Ephraem Syri, 
because the old writing was partly effaced with a sponge, and the parch- 
ment then used to write certain ascetic treatises of Ephraem upon. 
The old ink, however, appears notwithstanding very plainly, so that 
whole sentences can be read with ease with the naked eye. The an- 
cient characters had become obsolete ; people had become accustomed 
to the cursive hand with all its reading- and division-marks, and seized 
ues old MSS. to apply them to a better purpose. 


-- 


i Praefat. ad Cod. Alexan. § 36. p. vu. 


164 _ CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


The pages which were used as above stated, contained parts of the 
Old and, with some considerable exceptions pointed out by Wetstein 
and Griesbach, the whole of the New Testament, in the same order as 
in the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS., viz. the Gospels, Acts, Catholic, 
Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews after the second to the 
Thessalonians, and the Apocalypse. Much which Wetstein was not 
able to read, might be made legible by means now in our possession. 

The textis not divided into columns. The letters are somewhat 
larger than those of the Alexandrian MS., beautiful, uniform, upright, 
and square. The words are not separated. Initial letters are found, 
as inthe Alex. Cod., at the beginning of each book and of the small 
sections ; for, like that, it is divided into small sections like our verses, 
only somewhat larger. 

As to the punctuation-marks—at the end of ἃ sentence a period is 
commonly found in the form of a cross ; the smaller divisions are some- 
times regarded, but usually neglected. For a commaa dot is placed at 
the bottom of a letter, and for a colon, a dot in the middle ; but a later 
hand has almost invariably written in different ink a small cross over 
these dots, smaller than the cross which represents the period. For ex- 
ample, all the punctuation-marks occur in Matt. 22:11 and 12; while 
in verses 13 and 14 there are none, except a period after éxAexrot. In 
the 15th verse there is but one, viz. after λόγῳ; in the 10th there are 
but two, viz. after λέγοντες and after οὐδενός, To give some idea of 
the size of the smallest sections, we will state that verses 1 and 12 to- 
gether make one, verses 13 and 14 a second, and verses 15, 16,and 17. 
another. 

Such is the case in regard to punctuation-marks ; accents are nowhere 
to be found in the MS. 

In the Gospels the Codex has the chapters of Ammonius and the sec- 

tions of Eusebius. It has likewise the larger chapters and the τίτλους 
or summaries of contents which are connected with them. In the 
Epistles I observed some divisions agreeing with the Egyptian church- 
lessons. 
_ The inscriptions and subscriptions could not be more simple than 
they are, where they are preserved. John’s Gospel is subscribed thus : 
εὐαγγέλιον κατα Ἰωάννην. ‘The second of Peter has, with no number, 
the inscription: Πέτρου καϑολική ; the third of John has the super- 
scription, /wavvouv; Jude, ᾿Μοὐδα ἐπιστολή, with the subscription, -/ov- 
da καϑολικη. In the Pauline Epistles we find preserved the inscription 
πρὸς “Ῥωμαίους ; the inscription and subscription πρὸς Αορινϑίους αι; 
the subscriptions πρὸς Tuharas, πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς, πρὸς ᾿Πβραίους, 
πρὸς Τιμόϑεον 3. Neither of these has any thing further ; still less 
do they bear resemblance to those of Euthalius. 

In comparing this MS. with the Alexandrian, we find that it has not 
so many additions attributable to a later hand. Pursuing the compari- 
son with reference to the punctuation-marks, we find that it has far few- 
er subdivisions by means of commas and colons than the Alexandrian 
—two weighty reasons for ascribing to it the precedency in point of an- 
tiquity. 

This Codex, likewise, was written in Alexandria or somewhere in E- 
gypt, as is shown by the forms λήμψεται, Matt. 10: 41; συλλήμψῃ, 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 165 


Luke 1:31; ἀναλήμψεως, Luke 9: 51, ἀνελήμφϑη, Acts 1: 2, εἶπαν, 
Matt. 25: 8, Mark 10: 4, 10: 37, Acts 23:14; ἤλϑατε, Matt. 25:34; 
ἐλϑάτω Matt. 10: 13, Luke 11: 2. 

Wetstein, as we are assured by Less and particularly Griesbach, did 
all that was in his time possible in collating the MS.; yet it would be 
worth while to have a gleaning with the aid of our present resources. 
A fac-simile of the characters is given by Montfaucon (Paleogr. L ITI. 
c. 3, p. 214,) which however does not equal the elegance of the ori- 

inal. 
ἢ Codex 5. Μαϊ αὶ Dublinensis-rescriptus. This MS. is inferior to 
none in point of beauty. It has been washed over and other works 
written upon it; but the old letters can still be discerned. John Barret, 
a clergyman of Trinity College, Dublin, discovered the old writing, had 
it engraved, and published it in 64 copper-plates with a preface, criti- 
cal observations and an appendix.!. Through this splendid work we 
possess, though with many chasms, the Gospel of Matthew according 
to the Recension of Hesychius. As Griesbach was not acquainted with 
it, it is not designated in criticism by any letter. 

The characters are upright, square and uniform, somewhat larger 
than those in Cod. Ephraem. The A and iM are remarkably similar in 
form, as we find them to be in Coptic MSS. 

The text is subdivided into sections resembling verses, as in the MSS. 
A and C: there is but one column on each page. 

As to the punctuation—the period is invariably marked, or, where it 
is effaced, there is a considerable blank space in which it once stood. 
The colon is not always perceptible ; but a space of about half a letter 
denotes where itis or should be. ‘he smallest division, for which a 
space is left nearly as large as that for the colon, seldom occurs. ΑἹ] 
three have the same mark, viz. a dot. 

There are no accents ; to use the words of him who examined it per- 
sonally: “nec habet spiritus aut accentus omnino.”’ 

From all the grounds of decision it would appear that the MS. can- 
not be more modern than the Codex Ephraem Syri. To complete its 
description we must mention further, that it contains the chapters of 
Ammonius without Eusebius’ sections, and also the larger chapters with 
their inscriptions. 

I have inet with the following Alexandrian forms of words in the MS.:' 
Matt. 10: 41, λήμψεται; 7:25, προσέπεσαν; 11: 7, 8, 9, ἐξήλϑατε. 


§ 51. 


D or Codex Cantabr., a MS. of the Gospels and Acts, and E, a MS. 
of the Acts alone (Laudianus ITT), belong to the second period and 
were written after stichometry had become prevalent. Of the Epistles 
of Paul, D and E, or Codex Claromont. and Sangermanensis, and H, or 
Coislinianus, are MSS. of the same class. 


1 “ Evangelium secundum Mattheum, ex codice rescripto in bibliotheea col- 
legii SS. Trinitatis juxta Dublin, descriptum opera et studio Jo. Barret ete. cui 
adjungitur appendix collationem codicis Montfortiani complectens.’’ Dublinii 
in aedibus academicis. mpccct. 


166 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


The MS. D, containing the Gospels and Acts, was used by Robert 
Stephens in his edition of the New Testament in 1550, where its read- 
ings are occasionally quoted in the margin under the letter β΄. Its last 
possessor, before it passed over to England, was Theodore Beza. The 
rest of its history lies in obscurity and some of it must forever continue 
so. At any rate, however, it finally gotinto good hands. Beza present- 
edit in 1581 to the Cambridge University, where it was held in high 
estimation and in 1793 was printed in its own characters, which were 
carefully copied.'. The pages which are wanting are pointed out by the 
Editor’of the Preface p. XX VI, (but more circumstantially and accurate- 
ly in the Appendix at the end,) as well as those which were added by 
other hands in order to supply passages which were lost or for the sake 
of correction. 

The Gospels are in the following order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. 
Then comes the Acts of the Apostles. On one side, the right, is the 
Greek text, and on the opposite an old Latin version, antecedent to Je- 
rome, both written stichometrically in the (so called) uncial characters. 
The Greek letters are upright and square, not compressed like the more 
modern form, but similar to the oldest characters. 

The Greek and Latin are by the same hand. This is evident in 
the letters A and E, in the C of the Latin and the Sigma in the Greek ; 
it is still more clear in the letter Τ', the horizontal line of which is made 
by a peculiar, turn of the pen; and is especially plain from the Latin 
P and Greek P inthe formation of which the calligraphist had a re- 
markable peculiarity in which both agree. 

The calligraphist, however, knew but little of Greek and as little of 
Latin. Unskilled in these languages, he wrote his MS. in his profes- 
sional capacity. He was an Egyptian or Alexandrian. Asa Latino- 
Greek Codex written in Alexandria is somewhat remarkable, we will 
present the evidence in the case. No Codex, not even the Vatican, has 
so many Alexandrian forms and idioms as this. The εἶπαν is very fre- 
quent; also in Matt 13: 48, é@adav; Mark 8: 15, ὅτε ἄρτους οὐκ εἶχαν; 
12: 12, ἀπῆλϑαν; Luke 8: 34, épvyav; Acts 2:40, διεμαρτύρατο ; 
Acts 7: 27, 37, εἴπας for εἰπών, and v. 40, εἴπαντες ; Acts 7: 57, σύν-- 
ἐσχαν ta ὦτα; 10: 23, συνῆλθαν; 16: 7, ἤϑελαν. The editor has 
pointed out in the Appendix, John 8: 22, ἔλεγαν; 8: 58, ἀπέϑαναν ; 
Luke 1:59, ἡλϑαν ;. he also mentions Luke 2: 16, εὗραν, which Wetstein 
pointed out. We observe besides, λήμψονταν Matt. 20: 10; Arjupeode, 
Matt. 21:22; πιστεύετε Ore λήμιμεσϑε, Mark 11:24, Acts 1:8, 2: 38; 
λήμψονται, Mark 12: 40; συλλήμψη, Luke 1:31; ἀνελήμφϑη, Mark 
16: 19, Acts 1:2, 22, 10:16; ἀναλημφϑείς, Acts 1: 11, &c. &c. * 

Now if, as the evidence shows, the MS. was written in Alexandria, 
we can determine its age with tolerable accuracy. It was written after 
the time of Euthalius and before the Arabian conquest, in the latter part 
of the fifth or in the sixth century, at the period when the Greeks aban- 
doned the calligraphist’s laborious means of gaining a subsistence and 


1 “Codex Theodori Beze Cantabrigiensis, Evangelia et Apostolorum Acta com- 
plectens, quadratis literis Greco-Latinis, Academia auspicante, . . . edidit, codi- 
cis historiam preefixit, notasque adjecit Thomas Kipling, rel. Cantabrigie e prelo 
Academico impensis Academie, mpccxci.” in two splendid folio volumes. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 167 


surrendered the whole business into the hands of the poor and indus- 
trious Egyptians, who were not masters of the Greek and very little vers- 
ed in the Latin. (Comp. § 49.) 

It cannot well be denied that the MS. was intended for the use of 
Latins, and there are many traces of its having been in their , Posses- 
sion. cme is even the case that the Greek text from μελλούσης ὀργῆς in 
Matt. 3: 7 to, πνεῦμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἴῃ ν. 16, from John 18: 14 to 20: 18, 
and from πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει in Mark 16: 15 to the end, which had been 
destroyed by time or accident, has been added by a Latin hand, proba- 
bly about the twelfth century. 

One of the passages supplied, viz. Matt. 2: 21—3: 8, which Kipling 
from the characters assigns to the 10th century, even serves to point 
out the country of the west in which the MS. was preserved. For it 
coincides perfectly with Codex Morb ens, which is printed in Bian- 
chini’s Evangeliarium Quadruplex ;} and the latter MS. was preserved 
at Corbey, in France. 

For the sake of those who entertain the idea that the Greek text was ἡ 
often corrupted from Latin MSS., we further observe, that they may be 
convinced of the contrary from the Cambridge Codex, and may be sat- 
isfied that the Latin has rather been accommodated to the Greek with 
childish scrupulosity and against all rules of grammar,sometimes even 
absurdly. 

This Codex has no accents; but the circumstance is unimportant. 
Its predominant characteristic, its stichometrical arrangement, is deci- 
sive. Probably the copyist spared himself a piece of labor from which 
the Latins could derive but very little advantage. He had good reason 
for not subjoining at the end the Euthalian summaries of the Stichoi. 
They could not possibly suit this ancient text, which contained many 
words and clauses that no longer existed in the revised text copied by 
Euthalius. 

The MS. which bears the mark E among those of the Acts of the 
Apostles, contains the Actsalone. In the Bodleian Library, to which 
it was presented by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, it is de- 
signated Laudianus IIT. It wants some pages from Acts 25: 29 to . 
28:6. It was printed at Oxford in 1715 by Thomas Hearne. 

In this MS. the Greek text and one of the Latin versions before Jer- 
ome’s time are written stichometrically opposite each other upon the 
same page, contrary to the custom in other MSS. The Latin comes 
first, then the Greek. The characters are uncial, square, large, some- 
what heavy and much more rough than those of the Cambridge MS. 
The chapters of Euthalius are denoted by coarser initial letters extend- 
ing into the margin. The copyist has omitted the accents and the 
enumeration of the Stichoi at the end. 

It is the second known Greco-Latin MS. which is of Alexandrian 
origin. ‘That it is so, is proved by the following readings; Acts 16: 
20, 31, εἶπαν ; 26: 15, ἐγώ δὲ sina; 22: 24, εἶπας μάστιξι, ἀνε-- 
wae - 2: 23, ἀνείλατο: 73/10) ἐξείλατο; 21, ἐγείλατο; δ: 10, ηὗραν; 
8: 9, ἐλυμήνατο; 14: 15, καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐξήλλατο; 2: 40, 20: 23, de- 


1 Pref. ad editionem Cod. Cantabr. p. XVIII. 


168 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


ἐμαρτύρατο. According to Woide’s testimony (Pref. ad Cod. Alec. 
§ 76,) ἔλημψεν also stands for ἕληιμεν. 

We are thus led to the same conclusion as to the age of this MS. as 
we reached in the case of the Cambridge Codex. We cannot bring it 
lower down than the conquest of the Arabs, and must refer it to the 6th 
century or at any rate to the first quarter of the 7th. 

In the interim between this period andthe eighth century, it was in 
Sardinia. For at the end of the MS. there is subjoined a Greek edict 
of a Dux Sardinia, not in the hand writing of the copyists, βεβλιογρά- 
gov, but in the old documentary diplomatic hand beginning thus, 
Diavios Παγκχράτιος σὺν Yew Aovk Σαρδινίας δλῆα now τὰ ὑποτεταγ- 
μένα. LEneingo ϑεοστυγεῖς καὶ xg... . Justinian, who restored the 
power of the Greeks in the west, was the first (as Wetstein observes, L. 
1. Cod. Tit. 27. De off. Pref. Pretor. Africe leg. 2.§ 3,) who ap- 
pointed Duces Sardinia, which he did in 534.. But this authority of 
the eastern emperors lasted only till 749, when the Lombards subdued 
the island, and retained it till the fall of their power with their last King.' 
The cessation of the Duces Sardinie and of the Greek sway over the 
island in the middle of the 8th century, confirms the date assigned to 
the MS.; for the Greek statute of Diaviog Παγκράτεος Aov’ Σαρδι-- 
νίας must have been written in it during the dominion of the Greeks, i. e. 
before the middle of the 8th century. The edict, which it would ap- 
pear related to a religious matter, must certainly contain some date or de- 
signation of time and probably might give us some information in regard 
to the Codex itself. 

Woide has shown from several very satisfactory examples, that this Co- 
dex betrays no endeavour to accommodate the Greek to the Latin, but 
that, on the contrary, it forces and outrages the Latin in order to con- 
form it entirely to the Greek. (Prefat. ad ed. Cod. Alex. Sect. VI. § 
LXXX.) 

The MS. D of the Epistles of Paul has sometimes been considered 
as thesecond part of D of the Gospels and Acts. But its size is small- 
er, the parchment thinner and more beautiful, and the characters more 
elegant, than those of the Cambridge Codex. The abbreviations also, 
which they use, as Marsh has observed, are different, e. g. the abbrevi- 
ations of /jovus, Χριστος, ete. 

This Codex is commonly called Claromontanus, and now bears the 
number 107 in the French Library; formerly it was 2245. The begin- 
ning of the Epistles to the Romans and the conclusion of that to the 
Hebrews (the first and last page,) are wanting, and in the middle, 1 Cor. 
14: 13—22 has been supplied by a second hand. The MS. has many 
corrections from various hands, as is correctly stated by Griesbach. 

The Greek as well as the Latin text is written in beautiful square 
uncial characters, in such a manner that the Greek is on one page on 
the left of the reader, and the Latin on the other upon his right. Both 
columns are disposed stichometrically. The Greek letters show that 
the librarius was a Latin. They are invariably furnished with accents 
where they were requisite. 

Much as this latter. circumstance perplexed Montfaucgon, he dared 


1 Cambiagi, Istoria del regno di Sardegna. T. I. L. 3. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS, 169 


not absolutely deny the accents alike antiquity with the text. He there- 
fore softens what he says by admitting that they must have been added 
to the MS. not long after it was written : ‘‘Accentus et spiritus annotan- 
tur, sed ii secunda manu, ut videtur, nec diu, ut creditur, post descrip- 
tum codicem adjecti sunt.” This is very possible, for, as has been ob- 
served, one calligraphist frequently wrote the MS. and another the ac- 
cents. Griesbach admits that in particular passages of this MS., though 
extremely seldom, the accents were affixed by the first hand. (Symb. Crit. 
P. II. p. 32.) But this cannot be inferred with certainty from the faded or 
vivid appearance of the ink, asin many places the characters have been 
retouched with fresh ink. At any rate, even on this supposition the 
MS. originally had some accents, but they were not however applied 
throughout by the first copyist. 

The chief characteristic of the book is that it is stichometrically 
written, and by this circumstance the limit of its antiquity is determined. 
It could not however be placed lower down than the &th century, were 
we to judge merely from the Latin characters. But if we collate it 
with the Laudian MS. of the Acts, the origin of which cannot have been 
later than the first half of the 8th century, we must certainly attribute 
a higher antiquity to this Codex. 

The copyist spared himself the trouble of subjoining at the end of 
each Epistle the Euthalian subscriptions and the number of the stichoz. 
Instead of this there is at the end of the Epistle to Philemon a list of 
the s¢ichoi in all the books of the Old and New Testament; but by an- 
other hand, which likewise added the Epistle to the Hebrews. A spe- 
cimen of this MS., taken from the Epistle to the Romans, is presented 
by Montfaugon, in his Paleog. Gr. (L. III. c. 4.) 

E is a MS. of the Pauline Epistles which formerly belonged to the 
Abbey St. Germain at Paris, called Codex Sangermanensis. 1 have not 
been able to learn the number which it now bears, nor even whether it is 
now in existence.! 

According to Wetstein it is merely a transcript of the Codex Claro- 
montanus, and this is confirmed by Griesbach. The latter has even as- 
signed its date accordingly. For he clearly distinguished several differ- 
ent correctors who had tried their talents in amending the Greek and 
Latin text of the Cod. Claromont. The alterations in the Latin made 
by one of these are even in the cursive character. Now all these cor- 
rections and particularly the latter, which are clearly of a very modern 
date, are exhibited in the text of the MS. of St. Germain. According- 
ly the learned Griesbach assigned it to the 10th or 11th century. (Symb. 
Crit. P. IL. p. 77 seq.) The uncial characters, moreover, it would 
seem from the specimens in Mabillon (De re diplomat L. V. T. II. p. 
346,) and Montfaucon (Paleog. Gr. L. 111. ¢. 4. p.218,) were not 
familiar to the copyist, for they rather resemble laborious painting than 
a fluent handwriting. 

With this I reckon also two other MSS. which can claim no more 
right from their antiquity to be treated of here, than the MS. of St. Ger- 
main. Let me here however barely notice their origin and mutual re- 


ΠῚ {see from the public papers that the MS. is now in Petersburg, where it 
was carried by Counsellor Dubrowsky. 


170 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


lation, in order to throw light upon what we shall say hereafter. Asin 
Numismatics there are what are termed nummi commatis barbarici, re- 
impressions of Roman coins among harbarous nations, so we may call 
these MSS. Codices barbari. We allude to F'and G of the Pauline 
Epistles. Both are in Greek and Latin, and transcripts of copies of 
which we have before treated. 

G belonged, before it got into the Royal Library at Dresden, to Prof. 
Borner at Leipzic, and hence it is also called Codex Boernerianus. It 
contains only 13 Epistles of Paul: that to the Hebrews is not with the 
rest; and in the other Epistles the following passages are wanting—Rom. 
1: 1--6. 2: 6—26. 8: 1, 2. 14: 23.15: 1. 1 Cor. 3: 7—17. 6: 6—15. Coloss. 
2: 1—9. Christian Fr. Matthzi had the whole MS. printed with all its 
peculiarities, together with an engraved fac-simile of the characters!. 

The Greek characters are uncial, but formed in a peculiar way. 
They are very similar to those in the Psalter of Sedulius Scotus, to be 
seen in Montfaucon (Paleog. Gr. L. III. ο. 7. p. 237), and also to those 
in a Psalter which I have seen in the library of the Seminary at Wurz- 
burg. } 

The text is from a stichometrical copy, although it is continuous, the 
stichoi not being separated. Instead of doing this, the copyist denoted 
the beginning of each of them by an initial letter.. By writing sepa- 
rately the clauses which he has marked in this way, we shall have the 
stichometrical division. We will do this in regard to the engraved spe- 
cimen, without altering the orthography in the least. 


Tavra σοι γαφὼ 
Ἐλπιζω ελϑειν 
αν βραδυνω 
Ἴνα ἐιδης ᾿ 
IIwg dst. ἐν οὐκω ϑέξου ἀναστρέφεσϑαι. 
Hrg ἐστιν ἐκκλησία ϑέου ζωντος 
Στυλοὸς καὶ ἐδραίωμα τῆς adnduas 

Kat ομολογουμενος. 

Meya éotev τὸ τῆς ξυσεβιας. μυστηριον 
Os ἐφανερωϑη. ev σαρκι. 

“Ῥδικαιωϑὴ ἐν πνευματι 

“φϑη αγγελοις. 

Ἑχηρυχϑὴ ἐν. εἐϑνεσιν 

Πιστευϑὴ ev κοσμὼ 

Avelnugdn εν. δοξη 

O δὲ πνευμα ontms λέγει. 

Ott ἐν ὑστέροις καιροις--- 


----- -. 


1“ XIII. Epistolarum Pauli Codex cum versione Latina veteri, vulgo Ante-Hie- 
ronymiana, olim Boernerianus nunc Bibliothece Electoralis Dresdensis, summa 
fide et diligentia transcriptus et editus a Chr. Fr. Matthei. Misene impens. Erb- 
stenii MpccrxxxxI.’’ 4to. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 171 


To this correct stichometrical division by means of initial letters the 
copyist has also added marks of punctuation, thus evincing what an im- 
perfect idea he had of a proper division, and his entire incapacity to ad- 
just a few Stichoi according to the principles of Euthalius. He omit- 
ted the accents entirely. 

The Latin version is one of those prior to the times of Jerome, and 
is inserted between the lines of the Greek. It is written in the smaller 
or cursive hand, and in Anglo-Saxon characters, such as Wetstein ob- 
served in a Psalter in the library at Basle, which, according to the sub- 
scription, originally came from Ireland. 

The transcriber and his predecessors anxiously labored to make the 
version still more conformable to the Greek than it originally was; e. g. 
Rom. 4: 16, εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, in esse firmam pro- 
missionem ; 18, εἰς τὸ γενέσϑαι αὐτὸν πατέρα πολλῶν ἐϑνῶν, in fiendo, 
aut ut fieret, eum pater, aut patrem ; 20, οὐ διεκρίϑη τῇ απεστίᾳ, αλλ 
ἐνεδυναμώϑη, non haesitavit, aut aestimavit, aut dubitavit diffidentia, 
sed confortatus est, potentatus est. 

The MS. seems, also, to have been used in monastic schools for the 
study of Greek, whence certain notes which we find may be explained ; 
as Rom. 8:5, οἱ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες, quiisecundum carnem sunt parti- 
cipium ; Rom. 4: 13, ἐπεαγγέλια τῷ “βραάμ, promissio dativus Abra- 
hae, &c. But we cannot indulge any further in these observations, and 
must content ourselves with remarking how little ground there is for the 
theory of those who assume the corruption of the Greek MSS. from the 
Latin as a principle in the history of the text. 

From what has been said, we perceive that the Boernerian Codex is. 
a transcript of an older copy, the Greek text of which was written sticho- 
metrically in uncial characters, and at the side of which was an Ante- 
Jeromian version. Probably the original resembled the Clermont MS., 
and may have surpassed it in point of antiquity. 

The copy from which this Codex was derived, was, like the Greek 
and Latin MSS. D and E, written in Alexandria, as is amply shown by 
the idioms which occur. Rom. 2: 11. Ephes. 6: 9. Col. 3: 25, προσω- 
πολημψία. Philipp. 4:15, δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως. 1 Tim. 4:3, μεταλημῳ- 
ἐς. Rom. 11: 15, πρόλημψες. 1 Cor. 12: 28, ἀντίλημψες. 1 Tim. 3: 2. 5: 
7.6: 14, ἀνεπίλημπτον. Rom. 13: 2, λήμψονται. Galat. 6: 1, προλημφ- 
On. 2 Thess. 2: 13, dre εἴλατο ὑμᾶς. 2 Cor. 5: 17, yéyovav. Rom. 15: 9, 
ἐπέπεσαν, 2 Cor. 6: 17, ἐξέλϑατε. 

The transcript was made in the tenth, or at the highest in the ninth: 
century, since on its margin we find frequently noted by the first hand 
contra Τοδδισκάλκον, contra Grecos. The former promulged his te- 
nets in the ninth century; and then, too, the latter fell out with the La- 
tins and caused the famous schism. 

Notes are also found in it in another language, which has no resem- 
blance to the Anglo-Saxon, as 6. g. at p. 22 in Matthei’s edition, which 
would probably most readily be explained by a native of Scotland or 
Ireland. 

F, or Augiensis, is so called from the Augia major at Reichenau, the 
oldest Benedictine monastery in Germany, for St. Gallen belongs to 
Switzerland. The monastery is situated on a delightful island in the 
lower lake, a mile from Constance. Here was the first known abode 


172 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


of this Codex, with numerous other very old MSS. After many adven- 
tures it reached England, and was supposed to be lost, till some years 
ago Dr. Herbert Marsh gave information of its present place of deposite. 
It is in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Wetstein collated 
it before it got over to England. 

It is not interlinear like the former, but it is written in columns; first 
the Latin, then the Greek, on the same page. In the latter language it 
contains only thirteen Pauline Epistles; but in the Latin that to the He- 
brews also. Some of its pages are lost from Rom. 3: 8 to the first to 
the Corinthians. 

The Greek text is written in uncial characters, without accents; the 
Latin in the Anglo-Saxon cursive hand. Not only are the words in the 
Greek separated, but there is a point after each, and hence it must re- 
semble the Psalter of Sedulius (with which Wetstein compares the char- 
acters of the MS.) much more than even the Boernerian MS. does. 

We have yet to learn whether it exhibits any traces of Stichoi. The 
version in this MS. likewise is one of those which were current before 
Jerome’s time. 

Wetstein believed G to be acopy of 1"; there is nothing however to 
prevent our supposing the very reverse. In F there is a point after ev- 
ery word, and consequently each is separated from the rest and limited 
by this sign ; while on the contrary G was copied from a MS. which had 
no separation of the words. This may be seen from the following ex- 
amples; 1 Cor. 4: 21, the words are thus divided in G: nvevpure tenga. 
οτητος. 1 Cor. 8: 7, aoterns οὐς. ἀμολυνεται. 9: 12, we μὴ ἐν χοππην-- 
τὸν αδωμὲν. 15:33, ¢ ϑειρουσιν ἡ. Osazono. ta ομιλέαι. Neither was 
the MS. F copied from G; for the method of writing in columns is the 
usual one in the oldest MSS., while we have no very ancient examples 
of the manner in which G is written. Moreover G has many peculiar 
readings which are not met with in F. 

Yet it is remarkable how often they agree in their minutiae and mis- 
takes; so often indeed that it is difficult to deny their close mutual rela- 
tion. ‘These apparently inconsistent circumstances can be explained 
only by supposing that both had a common origin from a MS. which, 
according to the custom of the period, had received different corrections, 
of which one of the copyists adopted this and the other that for inser- 
tion in his text. 

The MS. of Reichenau is about.as old as the Boernerian ; for the 
words, “ post illam generalem baptismi gratiam etc.” which were taken, 
as Semler has observed, from Rhabanus Maurus and appended to 
the Reichenau Codex, are by the first hand. Hence it cannot have 
been written earlier than in the last half of the ninth or during the 
tenth century. 

These MSS. did not stray into our country, but probably originated 
here. Inthe seventh century there came among us numerous emigrants 
from Ireland, as well as some from Scotland, who settled here, and were 
the fathers and founders of our monastic institutions and abbeys. A- 
mong these were Gallus, Columban, Fridolin, Trudpert, Pirmin, and 
others, who eventually drew pupils afier them from their native land. 
Hence we sometimes see in our monastic libraries MSS. in the Anglo- 
Saxon characters. These pupils probably brought with them some 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 173 


knowledge of the Greek language; and in this way we obtained Grae- 
co-Anglo-Saxon MSS. For, towards the end of the seventh century, 
Theodore, a Greek by birth, was educated at Athens, admitted into the 
priesthood in Italy, and afterwards despatched by the Holy See with 
the archiepiscopal dignity to Britain.!. Through his means a knowledge 
of the Greek language was introduced into the British monasteries. 

Codex H. was a very beautiful stichometrical MS., fragments of 
which were preserved in the celebrated library of Bishop Coislin at Metz, 
No 202. These fragments of the Pauline Epistles have been printed by 
Montfaucon, and carefully examined de novo by Griesbach.” A catalogue 
of them may be found in his small edition of the New Testament, and 
a specimen of the characters in Montfaucgon. 

In earlier times this Codex was on Mount Athos, where it was used 
for old parchment to cover other books in the year 1208, as appears from 
a note in the book which it was used to cover. 

It is written in Greek alone, in very large genuine square characters 
of the ancient form, is stichometrical (as before said), and furnished 
with the accents. It had also the Euthalian subscriptions, of which the 
one at the end of the Epistle to Titus-still exists: ἐπεστολὴ πρὸς Tirov 
τῆς Κρητῶν ἐκκλησίας x. τ. A. 

Montfaucon inferred from the note : ἀντεβλήϑη ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν 
Καισαρείᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιυϑήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ 
γεγραμμένον, which is found at the end of the MS., that it was written 
in Syria. But this postscript belongs to Euthalius and not to the co- 
pyist. On the other hand, the form εὐκαταλημπτον, in the fourth and 
fifth lines of the subscription, is Alexandrian. Hence the MS., consid- 
ering its genuine ancient characters, must have been written in the 6th 
century, before the irruption of the Arabs. (Comp. § 49.) 


§ 52. 


We pass now to the MSS. which were written subsequently to sticho- 
metry, and among them we give the first place to Codex K, which was 
brought from Cyprus in the year 1637, and is hence called Cyprius. It 
was once Colbertin. 5149, and is now N. 63 in the library of the King 
of France. We have assigned it the first place because it informs us 
clearly how the change from stichometry to proper punctuation occur- 
red. (Comp. § 45.) It is not indeed of the same date with this occur- 
rence. Stichometry was abandoned before the existence of this Codex. 


1 Epist. Zachariae ad Bonifac. (in Hartzheim's Concilia Germ. T.1. p. 84.) 
“Tn gentem Anglorum et Saxonum in Britannia insula primi praedicatores ab 
sede apostolica missi, Augustinus, Laurentius, Justus, et Honorius, novissime et 
tuis teinporibas Theodorus Graeco-Latinus, ante philosophus et Athenis erudi- 
tus, Romae ordinatus, pallio sublimatus ad praefatam Britanniam transmissus ju- 
dicabat et gubernabat.”’ 


Ἶ ον Biblioth. Coislin. Part II. p. 253-263. Griesbach. Symbol. Crit. 
» 11. ps Bos 


3 Scholz has fully described it and collated it de nove. ““ Comment. inaugur. 
de Cod. Cyprio et familia quam sistit.”” Ed. Jo. Mart. August. Scholz, at the 
νη of ie “ Curae criticae in historiam textus evangeliarum.” 4to Heidel- 

erg. 1820. 


΄ 


174 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


But it is a transcript of a copy of that period, and contains the four Gos- 
pels in uncial characters, which are rather narrow, furnished with ac- 
cents which, however, are negligently placed and are wanting over ma- 
ny words and even over whole lines—a constant subject of regret in 
biblical MSS. 

The punctuation-marks in which it abounds, have this peculiarity, 
that they are inserted without regard to grammatical division. A dot 
is always used to denote the end of a Stichos, in order to save the blank 
space which was lost by the usual separation of the Stichot. There is 
a specimen of the characters in Montfaucon, (Paleog. Gr. L. III. § 6. 
p. 232.) and another in Scholz’s treatise. The subscription, which 
might determine something in regard to the age of the MS., is very 
much injured. Montfaucon, and with him Scholz, assign the Codex to 
the eighth century. But no one has yet shown that the compressed let- 


ters ζ EOD were ever used in MSS. of so early a date as the eighth 


century ; or that the letters Z and Sever have their strokes prolonged 
beneath the line, or that the small strokes at the bottom of the letter 2 
are ever extended below the line, in such MSS. 1 cannot therefore give 
up my opinion that it is not older than the ninth century. 

E of the Gospels in the library at Basle (B. VJ. 21.), wants Luke 
3: 4—15, 24: 47 to the end.—The following passages have been added 
by a second hand: Luke 1: 69—2: 4, 12: 58—13: 12, and 15: 8—20. 

With the exception of the appendages to the text, it is written in a 
beautiful upright uncial character of the more ancient kind. The let- 
ters C Ε ΟΘ are perfectly round, the strokes of X, Z, =, are not pro- 
longed below the line, as may be seen in regard to most of these letters 
in the specimen we have given. (Sce engraving.) A regular system of 
punctuation is employed through the whole book. The full stop is de- 
noted by a dot at the top of the letter; the middle pause by one about 
the middle of the letter ; and the smallest by a dot at the bottom of the 
line, which is sometimes lengthened into a manifest comma. The words 
are generally furnished with accents, but they were now and then for- 
gotten. The text is divided, like that of Codd. A, C, into sections re- 
sembling verses. 

But in the appendages to the text we find characters belonging to oth- 
er periods. An uncial character of the ninth century predominates, 
not unlike the characters found in Cod. L, with all the compressed and 
lengthened letters which are found in MSS. of this century. In this 
character are written the summaries of the chapters or the z/zAov, which 
are prefixed to the Gospels, the pages containing which summaries, it is 
evident, were separately inserted and stitched with the rest. By the 
same or a contemporary hand are the designations of the Ammonian 
sections on the side of the page, as also on the lower margin the refer- 
ences to other Evangelists in which any particular narrative likewise oc- 
curs, together with the notices of the festivals on which certain portions 
were read: 6. g. at the beginning of Matthew—ev¢ τὰ ἅγια ϑεωφάνια, 
τ METH φῶτα, μετὰ TA φῶτα, μετὰ τὴν τ ἁγίων πάντων, etc. 

Both kinds of characters sometimes occur on the same line or imme- 
diately beneath each other. The festivals are very seldom designated 
in the ancient character; but certain formulae at the beginning of 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 175 


church-lessons are found marked very frequently in this hand y on the 
upper margin ; e. δ: on the 70th page: ta καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐλάλησεν 0 ‘ies ; 
96th, εἰσῆλθεν o/c εἰς Kanegvaovu; p. 100. τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐπορεύε-- 


το 6 ᾽Νὶ τοῖς σάββασιν. etc. These introductory formulae are often in- 
serted far into the page, so that a blank space remained before them, 
which was occupied by the writer of the second species of character. 
Thus, Ρ. 110, the introduction: τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἤκουσεν ὁ Howdns ὁ 


βασιλεὺς τὴν ἀκοὴν τοῦ ᾿μὺ, is _in the first hand; the words which are 
prefixed : εἰς τὴν ἀποτομὴν τοῦ προδρόμου, are in the second charac- 
ter ; and in p. 158 the formula, τῷ καιρῷ ἔχε ἐνῳ ἦλθϑεν, is in the more 
aneient) and the τέτλος---περὶ τοῦ ἔχοντος πνεῦμα δαιμονίου, in the la- 
ter character. 

Now if a distinction is not carefully made, we shall pass a wrong 
judgment and do injustice to the body of the MS., which is of far great- 
er antiquity than these appendages to the text. A MS. which received 
additions of this nature in the ninth century, must the rather on this 
account be regarded as of earlier date than the ninth century; and its 
characters bear infallible marks of a more ancient date. Let it not be 
objected that perhaps the calligraphist took it into his head to imitate a 
more ancient character. There is no appearance of a mere imitation. 
Every letter is boldly traced; every stroke is made by a fearless hand. 
It is the writing of a ready penman, not of a timid imitator. I am ac- 
quainted with a MS. of the four Gospels of the nature alleged, which 
was formerly in the possession of Chevalier Nani, and is now through 
his generosity in St. Mark’s Library. It is clearly evident that it was 
written about the tenth century; yet the letters CO€ © in it are as 
round as in the oldest MSS. But the hesitating, uncertain hand which 
guided the reed or pen betrays itself most plainly. We see the unsteadi- 
ness of the hair strokes, the mode in which the heavy strokes were grad- 
ually made thicker by repeated touching, etc. etc. Nothing of this kind 
can be discovered in the Basle Codex. The characters in which it is 
written are the genuine ones of the eighth century. But I will not 
venture to assign to it a higher antiquity, for this reason, viz. that while 
in the more ancient writing, if a calligraphist was pressed for room at 
the end of a line, he made the letters every way smaller; this Codex 
only compressed the Jetters in width, making them narrower. This is 
most striking in C € O, and may be regarded as a prelude to the alter- 
ations of the ninth century. 

The fac-simile which 1 insert in this edition was taken by Prof. Hess 
of Basle, who undertook the trouble with extreme politeness. I was 
desirous of presenting a passage which should afford likewise a speci- 
men of the second species of character. Thisis presented in the plate, 
(which contains Luke 8: 13-18,) at the end of the 15th verse. The 
abbreviation πρϑ' denotes the addition, or παράϑεσις," which the public 
reader foe as 8 concluding formula: ταῦτα λέγων ἐς ἐφώνει ὁ EY—i. 6. 


ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν, ἀκουέτω. The abbreviation CAS, σαββάτω ς. re- 
fers to the cross after οὐδείς, v.16, by which the beginning of a read- 
ing section is denoted. By ‘the side of σαββάτῳ ς. a third hand, which 
however appears far more rarely than the second, has added the intro- 
ductory formula: εἶπεν 6 κύριος οὐδείς. . . . which the other writer 
had omitted. 


176 CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


to be prolix, T will mention bu 
τῶν ἁγίων ἀναργύρων is marked in Matthew. ‘These moneyless saints 
were Cosmas and Damian, who practised medicine gratuitously... As 
early as the last half of the sixth century they had a temple at Constan- 
tinople through the favour of Justin the Second and Sophia his wife.* 
We find the following words in the margin of Luke: εἰς τὴν μνήμην 
τῶν ayiwy νοταρίων. ‘These were exclusively Constantinopolitan 
saints, who perished in the tumult excited by Macedonius, and were 
afterwards esteemed martyrs, A church was built over their graves, 
which was standing in the days of Sozomen. 

This Codex, then, was used in Constantinople or its vicinity as a 
church-MS., on which account it contains designations of the church- 
lessons by the original hand. Hence the τίτλον could easily be dispen- 
sed with, as well as the Ammonian sections also, and it was another 
hand which enriched the MS. with them and with designations of all 
the sacred festivals. } . 

If we are right in assigning the origin of this MS. to the eighth cen- 
tury, it cannot be denied, that a perfect system of punctuation was pre- 
valent in this century, at least in some countries. 

LL, once 2861, now 62 at Paris in the royal library, contains the four 
Gospels on parchment, elegantly written with uncial letters in two col- 
umns; yet not with what is called the old square character. C € OO 
are compressed ; Z, 5, X, are prolonged beneath the line; the small 
strokes of 4 and the cross stroke of © are exactly as in the specimen 
presented, which I copied with care, and which I hope will be prepared 
with care for this edition by the artist. ‘The Codex has accents, which 
however are negligently placed and often entirely wanting. ‘The punc- 
tuation is expressed by two marks; the greater and middle pause by a 
cross and the smallest by a comma. 

Wetstein collated the MS., and after him with peculiar care Griesbach, 
who has given a description of it.t It bears infallible marks of the 
country of its origin. Griesbach observes respecting the orthography 
of the MS. : “ Semper scribitur λήμψομαι cum conjugatis pro λήψομαι, 
et saepissime εἶπαν pro é/m0v, nonnunquam etiam ἦλθαν et ἔσαν." 
We also find ‘day for εἴδον in Luke 9: 32 and 10: 24; for ἐξεληλύϑατε 
in Luke 7: 24, 22: 52, ἐξήλϑατε ; also for εὗρον and εὕρομεν in Luke 
2: 16 and 23: 2, εὗρα, εὕραμεν; and for ἑωράκασιν in Luke 9: 26, éw- 
oaxav. Hence it is of Egyptian origin, and from the characters it ap- 
pears that it is an Egyptian MS. of the second period. (§ 49.) Gries- 
bach has assigned it to the ninth century, in which I perfectly agree 
with him. 

V, a MS. of the four Gospels, belongs to the library of the Holy Syn- 


1 Suicer, Thes. Philol. V. dsdloyuges. Balsam. Scho]. ad Photii Nomoe. Tit. 
VII. c. 1. in Biblioth. Juris Canon. Voell. et Justell. T. I. p. 230. 


2 Anonym. apud Bandur. in Antiq. Imp. Orient. P. II. T. I. p.30. comp: 
notes on this passage, T. II. p. 624-5. 


3 Sozom. H. E. L. IV. ο. 3. Comp. the Notes of Valesius on this passage aud 
on Socrates, H. E. L. V. c. 22. 


4 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. Tom. I. p. LXVI—LXXIX. 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS, 177 


among the literary treasures there prese eg wants Matt. 5: 44—6: 
12. 9: 18—10: 1. 22: 44—23: 35. Mark and Luke are perfect, but at 
John 7: 39 begins a new hand, which continues to the end, and in which 
a subscription also is added. But this has so little bearing upon a de- 
cision of the age of the MSS., that Matthei wholly rejects it as inad- 
missible for this purpose. 

The writing is uncial, or, if that word be disliked, the letters are 
those of the larger alphabet, which, however, are very small and neat. 
They are not much larger than those of Cardinal Barberini’s Hexaplar 
MS. of the Prophets; they are, however, somewhat longer. (Bianchi- 
ni Evang. Quadr. P. I. ad pag. DXX XII. Cod. Barb. Sign. num. V.) 
The MS., as is shown by the specimen which Matthei has published 
with the Apocalypse, is not written Gzvyegws at all, but serie continud. 
It is divided, however, into smal] paragraphs resembling verses. The 
beginning of Mark has been engraved as a specimen of the character. 

The MS. has, besides the accents, a regular punctuation throughout. 
For a full stop a dot is placed at the top of a letter : for the middle pause 
one at the bottom; and for the smallest a comma. The form and ele- 
gance of the characters assign that part of the MS. which precedes 
John 7: 39 to the ninth century. The rest is several centuries young- 
er. The MS., as I am assured on good authority, was preserved with 
other MSS. from the conflagration of Moscow. Matthzi has described 
it in his Appendix Ad Thessalonicens. p. 265 seq. 

g, (XCVIII. in the library of the Holy Synod,) which was formerly 
in the monastery of St. Dionysius on Mount Athos, contains all the Pau- 
line and Catholic Epistles. The Catholic Epistles are accompanied 
with a Catena; the Pauline with Scholia by John Damascenus. The 
text is written in two columns in uncial characters, with accents and 
marks of punctuation. A dot above the letter denotes the full stop; in 
the middle, the middle pause ; and beneath, the smallest or the comma. 

The Catena and Scholia are written in the cursive hand, on which 
account the MS. can hardly have been written before the tenth century. 
There is a description of it in Matthzi at the end of Epist. ad Rom. 
Tit. et Philem. p. 265-67, together with a specimen of it taken from 
the Catholic Epistles. 

b is an Evangelistarium (in the library of the Holy Synod, N. 
XLII.) in two columns, with uncial characters and accents, and, judg- 
ing from the specimen which has been presented, is badly punctuated 
and full of mistakes. The characters are rather heavy, yet not ill-form- 
ed. They very much resemble those of another Evangelistarium of the 
year 995, in Wetstein N. 5, of which Montfaucon has given a speci- 
men in the Append.ad Paleogr. He calls its possessor Corel ; it should 
have been Covel. A description of the Moscow MS. may be found in 
Matthei, Epist. ad Thessalonic. p. 252. where likewise a specimen of. 
the characters is presented. 

his an Evangelistarium (N. XII. in the library of the Holy Synod,) 
the beginning of which, comprising some lessons in John, is much inju- 
red. It is written in two columns, in long uncial characters, with ac- 
cents and punctuation-marks. The smallest division is made, as ap- 
pears from the specimen, by a dot which is lengthened almost to a line; 

23 


oo 


ed at Moscow, where this Codex is reggeded as the oldest monument 


178 CONGERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 


the full stop is denoted by a cross. , The MS. is in general exceedingly 
correct, and was written by a very competent copyist. The characters 
bear much resemblance to those of an Evangeliarium (Colbert. 700. 
Wetsten. n. 1.) of which a page is to be found in Montfaucon (Paleogr. 
L. IIT. C. 4. p. 229.) Montfaucon is inclined to assign it to the 8th cen- 
tury. We might agree with himif he had only proved that there exist- 
ed a regular system of punctuation at that period; but without valid 
proof of so important a point, the 9th century is full early enpugh for 
a MS. possessing the characteristics which we find in this. Matthzi has 
described it (Ad Thessalonic. p. 253. 4.) and furnished a specimen. 

M, once the property of the Abbé des Camps, now n. 48. in the Li- 
brary of France, contains the four Gospels in the uncial character with 
accents and punctuation marks. The MS. has moreover other marks 
above the lines in red ink, which are apparently notes according to which 
the Gospels were chanted in the churches. It has, besides, certain dif- 
ficult characters and likewise various readings on the margin in the 
cursive hand ; to all appearance they are by the original penman. From 
this characteristic it cannot be older than the 1Uth century. ‘Thereisa 
specimen in Montfaucon. (Paleogr. L. III. ο. 8. p. 260.) 


§ 58. 


We have yet to notice briefly some, at least, of the remarkable MSS. 
in the cursive character to which we have referred in the history of the 
text. 

We will mention those of the Gospels first. 

No. 1 of the Gospels in Wetstein and Griesbach, has the mark B. 
VI. 27. in the Library at Basle, and is an elegant MS., adorned with 
pictures. It contains the whole New Testament, (except the Apoca- 
lypse,) which however is so arranged that the Acts and Epistles come’ 
first and the Gospels follow. Before the Gospel of John is depicted the 
resurrection of Lazarus. By the side of Jesus stand two male figures, 
crowned and clad in purple and gold, one old and grey-bearded, the 
other youthful. Beneath the picture is a Greek epigram, from which 
we learn that one of the Leos is represented in it, and Wetstein has 
shown from other considerations that the two crowned persons are Leo 
the Wise and his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus, under whom this 
MS. was probably written for the use of the church of St. Lazarus 
which was built by Leo. Leo lived at the end of the 9th and in the 
beginning of the 10th century. The text of the Gospels is,very differ- 
ent from the text of the rest of the MS. 

No. 10 in the edition of Prof. Matthewi comes next; in Griesbach it 
is marked M‘. 10. This MS. is inthe library of Nicephorus, Archbish- 
op of Chersonesus, and contains the four Gospels accompanied with 
Scholia. According to the subscription at the end of Luke’s Gospel, it 
was presented by the copyist Moses, the son of Elias, to the monastery 
of the votaries of St. Michael at Jerusalem. This circumstance con- 
firms what we asserted respecting the text of this MS., viz. that it was 
transcribed from a copy of the Palestinian Recension. 

It is written on parchment in the cursive hand, in folio, with accents 
and punctuation marks. The initial letters, the summaries of the con- 


CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS. 179 


tents of the Gospels, the inscriptions of the same, the Eusebian Canons 
and the designations of the large chapters are in the margin in red ink 
and ornamented with gold. The whole MS. is in an excellent state of 
preservation, correct, and, it would appear, even splendid. ‘To say the 
least, it must have been written before the crusades, before the close of 
the 11th century. We could not expect to find a MS. written at Jeru- 
salem, during or after those expeditions. Matthzi has described it at 
the end of Epp. ad Thessalonic. p. 234—7. and presented a specimen 
taken from Luke. 

No. 114 according to Griesbach, or Harlei. 5540, contains the Gos- 
pels on parchment, written in a small elegant hand sometime in the 13th: 
century. It has been carefully collated only in Matt. VIII, IX, X, ΧΙ: 
elsewhere with invariable negligence. In this MS. are wanting Matt. 
XVII. 4—18. and XXVI. 57—73. (Griesbach, Symb. Crit. P. I, 
CLXXXXIII.) ᾿ 

No. 124 according to Griesbach, in the Royal Library at Vienna 
Lambec. XXX1.4. At the end of each Gospel the στίχοι and ῥήματα 
are marked together. The cursive hand is not elegant; the initial 
letters are rude. A description of it and an engraved specimen, togeth- 
er with excellent observations on the text of this MS., have been furnish- 
ed us by Treschow in his Tentam. Descriptionis Codicum Vet. Graec. 
Nov. Foed. qui in biblioth. C. Vindob. asservantur. Hauniae. 1773. § 4. 
Birch, who likewise collated the MS., assigns it to the 11th or 12th cen- 
tury. (Proleg. in edit. IV. Evang. p. LVIII.) 

lis a MS. in Matthzi, notices of which are scattered here and there 
in his edition. (See the end of his edition of Epp. ad Thessalon. p. 
187. Praefat. in Acta App. p.X. Praefat.in Epp. Cath. p.XXV.) 
The specimen is from Epist.ad Rom. It contains the whole New Tes- 
tament and the Psalter, together with the Canticles (so called,) in an 
extremely small cursive hand, with accents, punctuation-marks and por- 
traits of the Evangelists and Apostles. The text of the Acts, (and it is 
on this account principally that it is here noticed,) is of an entirely dif- 
ferent Recension from the rest of the book. The MS. is numbered 
CCCLXXX, in the Library of the Holy Synod, and, in the estimation 
of the learned man who collated it, belongs to the 12th century. 

Vatic. 367 contains the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles in 4to. ; 
it was written about the 12th century. (Birch. Variae Lectiones ad 
Text. Act. App. Epp. Cath. et Pauli. Hauniae. 1798. Prolegom. p. 1X.) 
The MS. has a pure text in the Acts and Catholic Epistles ; but in the 
Pauline Ep. it is much disfigured by readings from other MSS. 

No. 17 in Wetstein and Griesbach, containing the Epistles of Paul, 
was formerly Colbert. 2844, and is now N. 14 in the Library at Paris. 
The MS. contains extracts from the Prophets, with the whole New Tes- 
tament, the Apocalypse excepted. The leaves are bound together; it 
begins with the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and proceedsin order 
as far as Philemon inclusive. The Epistle to the Hebrews comes be- 
fore the two to Timothy. After Philemon comes the Acts and then 
the Epistle to the Romans; then the Catholic Epistles and lastly the 
Gospels. It is_well written and belongs to the 10th or 11th century. 
The epistles of Paul are especially worthy of our notice. In the Gos- 
pels it is numbered in Wetstein 33, and 13 in the Acts and Catholic 


180 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


Epistles. (Griesbach, Symb. Crit. T. I. p. 167 seg. There are ob- 
servations on its text of the Pauline Epistles in Griesbach’s Symb. Crit. 
‘T. 2. p. 87—148. Begtrup made a gleaning of various readings which 
was published by Birch in his Supplem. to Var. Lectiones ad Text. 
Apoc. Haunia, 1800. p. 95. seq. 

The Vatican MS. 579 contains the Apocalypse along with various 
other writings ; itis on cotton paper, and perhaps belongs to the 13th cen- 
tury. Hence it is not very ancient ; but it was derived from a pure copy 
in anexcellent state of preservation. The copyist, however, had already 
made preparations to corrupt the text ; for he has collected various read- 
ings from another MS. and noted them in the margin. They would 
probably have been introduced into the next transcript as emendations: 
it is even probable that he had already done this himself in respect 
to some. passages, unless indeed it were done before him ; for the MS. 
even now sometimes deviates from its family. (Birch. Var. Lectiones 


ad Text. Apoc. p. 9, 12.) 


CHAPTER VII. 


EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


§ 54. 


A beautiful invention released the copyists from their laborious occu- 
pation; and who would not imagine that it must very soon have been 
applied to the documents of Christianity? But in truth their turn came 
very late; many works of the classic authors of Greece having been 
multiplied by means of the press and disseminated in Europe before 
any one ventured to publish the books of the New Testament in the 
original language, although there already existed several impressions of 
the Latin and also of the German Bible. 

Did this result from the veneration entertained for these books? 
From the distrust of capacity for such a task which was felt by every 
one? Or was it because that after the Florentine Council little reliance 
was placed on the Greeks or on their MSS.? It could hardly be for want 
of religious liberty, as the Councils of Constance and Basle had recent- 
ly taken it under their protection against the alarming pretensions set 
up on the other side of the Alps. 

At least it was not so in one free state, which was never inclined to 
endure coercion from without. I allude to Venice, where the celebra- 
ted Aldus in the year 1504 first edited, not a New Testament, but only 
the first six chapters of John’s Gospel, as an experiment,! and, contrary 
to what we should have expected, no advance was made beyond this for 


1 Adler in theRepert. fiir bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, XVII. Th. p. 150. 
seq. My 


’ 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 181 


ἃ long time. Before this there probably existed nothing of the New 
Testament but Mary’s song of praise, Luke 1: 42—56, and Zachariah’s, 
Luke 1: 68—80, which are attached to a beautiful Greek Psalter, of the 
year 1486, in my own possession. " 


§ 55. 


Now, however, two individuals at the same time undertook the neg- 
lected task, one of whom possessed surpassing learning and critical acu- 
men, and the other surpassing zeal and perseverance ; moreover, neith- 
er were wanting in the spirit or the means of liberal expenditure. These 
were Desiderius Erasmus, and the Spanish Minister, Cardinal Xi- 
menes. 

In the midst of the festivities with which the Court celebrated the 
birth of an heir to the throne, (1502,) the Minister projected his Poly- 
glot Bible, (Biblia Complutensia, the Bible of Alcala,) called together 
the learned men to whom he desired to entrust its execution, and after- 
wards labored with them himself inthe midst of the most weighty af- 
fairs of state.’ 

It seems that they began with the New Testament, for according to 
the postscript at the end of the Apocalypse, that book was completed in 
January, 1514, while the whole was not finished till the 10th of July, 
1517. 

In preparing this edition, as they state in the preface, they made use 
of the oldest and most correct MSS., which were sent them by Leo X 
from the papal Library. As Leo was elevated to the papal chair in 
March 1513, it is impossible, even leaving out of the account the time 
necessary for the transmission of the MSS., that they could have made 
much use of them in the ten months that elapsed before the comple- 
tion of the Apocalypse in January 1514. It must have been the case 
then, that they received these MSS. earlier, in the time of Julius IT, 
through the intervention of the Cardinal de Medici, who had great influ- 
ence over this Pope and afterwards received their thanks for his good 
κῶς when he was in possession of that dignity in which he succeeded 

ulius. 

They had also other MSS. which they have not expressly mentioned. 
At least Stunica, in his controversy with Erasmus, often refers to a Co- 


dex Rhodiensis, which was probably sold to the rocket-makers with oth- 


er MSS. of the University Library at Alcala.” 

Ximenes had the satisfaction of seeing his work completed ; but he 
died four months afterwards, on the 8th November 1517, before it was 
published. Several years elapsed after his decease before Leo X grant- 
ed. permed for its publication, -which he did on the 20th of March, 
1521. 

Erasmus began later, but his edition of the New Testament was pub- _ 
lished before that of Alcala. It was accompanied with a Latin version 


1 Hist.du Card. Ximenes par Flechier, T. I. L. I. l’an 1502. Hist. du Minis- 
tére du Card. Ximenes par Marsolier. T. II. L. IV. 


2 Michaelis’ Einleit. in das N. Test. I. Th. § 106 p. 776. 4th ed. 


1 182 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


of his own by the side of the Greek, together with valuable notes, and 
appeared in folio in the year 1516. It was published by Frobenius. 
The basis of his edition was, as to the Gospels, Codex Basil. B. VI. 
25; and as tothe Acts and Epistles Codex Basil. LX, both which, with 
corrections from Erasmus’ own hand, are preserved in the City Library 
of Basle. Codex Reuchlini, from which he drew his text of the Apoca- 
‘lypse, is no longer to be found. With these he sometimes collated Ba- 
sil. VI.17, and Basil. B. X. 20; as also some Latin MSS., as he says 
in the preface to his Annotations, p. 225, and some of the fathers: “Pos- 
tremo ad probatissimorum omnium suffragiis autorum, vel citationem, 
vel emendationem, vel enarrationem, nempe Origenis, Chrysostomi, 
Cyrilli, Hieronymi, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, quorum testimonia 
™, complusculis locis in hoc adduximus.” 

The annotations, it seems, were made during the revision of the text ; 
hence the preface which precedes them is dated 1515, before the print- 
ing of the whole was completed. 

This edition was speedily followed by this remarkable man with a 
second in 1519, and a third in 1522. It was in the latter that he first 
adopted the passage 1 John 5: 7, as he says, 6 codice Britannico.! Af- 
terwards a fourth and fifth appeared in 1527 and 1535. In the two last 
he made use of the Alcala Bible, adopting several emendations from it, 
particularly in the Apocalypse. 


§ 56. 


A beginning had now been made, and several other individuals soon 
appeared in the field. Among these was Andrew Asulanus, the father- 
in-law of Aldus, who, in 1518, reprinted the Erasmian text in folio at 
Venice, but not without collating other MSS., even though what he 
says in his preface, “‘multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis,” be an 
exaggeration. At least we find traces of such a collation in certain va- 
riations, particularly in the Apocalypse; and one of the MSS. which 
he used, containing the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, 
has been identified.” 

As he adopted Erasmus for his guide, Robert Stephens, in his neat 
edition of 1546 in 16mo., followed the Bible of Alcala. This iscalled 
the mirificam edition in allusion to the commencement of the preface : 
“Ὁ mirificam regis nostri. . . . liberalitatem.” The occasion of this 
denomination was, the supposition that it was entirely free from errata. » 
In preparing this edition several MSS. were likewise at his command, 
concerning which he expresses himself with true French vivacity: “Si- 


1 This is well known to have been Cod. Montfortit, written about the 14th cen- 
tury. Comp. Opp. Erasmi, Tom. IX. p. 294.595. Bas. 1540, and Repertor. fir 
bibl. und morgenl. Litt. ΠΤ. Th. p. 260. Dr. Herbert Marsh collated the pas- 
sage in Cod. Montf.: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, πατὴρ, hoyos, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ov 
τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσε οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῆ, with the Complut. ed. in 
which it runs thus: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. 6 πατῆρ;, καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ayLoY πνεῖμα, 
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἵ μαρτυροῖντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (Notes 
and additions to Michaelis’ Introduction, p. 337. 338. See also Paulus’ Memora- 
bilia, chap. VI. p. 14. 31.) 

2 Birch, Pref. in IV. Evang. Haunie, 1788. p. VII. WIII. It is the Matic. 


360 
% 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. ‘183 


quidem codices nacti aliquot ipsa vetustatis specie pene adorandos, quo- 
rum copiam nobis bibliotheca regia facile suppeditavit ; he then adds: 
“adjuti preeterea sumus cum aliis, tum vero Complutensi editione, quam 
ad vetustissimos bibliothece Leonis X. Pont. codices excudi jusserat 
Hispaniarum Cardinalis Franciscus Simenius, quos cum nostris miro 
consensu se@pissime convenire ex ipsa collatione deprehendimus.” 

This agreement between his MSS. and the edition of Alcala must 
certainly have been very great, for it appears from comparison that not 
only in this, but also in the next edition in 16mo. 1549, he has exactly 
copied it except ina few places. (Bengel, Introd. in Cr. Nov. Test. 
§ 36. p. 435.) 

In the third edition, however, which was printed in folio in 1550, with 
great typographical elegance, and is his principal edition, he follows 
(Bengel. ἰ. c.) the fifth edition of Erasmus, with which he collated 16 
MSS., noting their various readings in the margin. “Cum vetustis- 
simis sedecim scriptis exemplaribus,” says he in the Preface : the first 
however was, as he says himself, the Complutensian copy; the second 
was from Italy, the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 15th were from 
the Royal library; the rest, which he cites in the margin under the 
marks «, 6, 7, up to ἐς, from other places.! In the year 155], an edition 


1 The learned have taken great pains to discover the MSS. which Stephens 
used in his third edition. This solicitude has been occasioned by 1 John 5: 7, 
where Stephens put a sign of omission before ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, without denoting 
that it extended to the following words as far as ἐν τῇ γῇ. He placed in the 
margin “0. & ¢. ἐν va, vy.”’ meaning that these MSS. omitted the part marked ; 
and it was hence concluded that they did not want the whole passage, but only 
the words, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, or that if they omitted the whole passage, the ten others 
at least contained it. (David Martin, Vérité du texte 1 Jean 5:7, démontrée par 
des preuves, qui sont au-dessus de toute exception. Utrecht. 1722, 8vo. Journal 
des Savans. Juin. 1720. p. 643. 

Le Long and Wetstein commenced a search after these MSS. and found a 
partof them. Griesbach corrected their statements, and Fleischer in his letters 
to Michaelis, from which the latter has given extracts in the 3d and 4th edition 
of his Introduction, names the numbers which they subsequently received in the 
royal library at Paris. 

ὦ, according to the account of Robert Stephens himself, is the Edit. Complut. 
—f, is Cantabr. Ev. D.—y, Evang. Reg. 2867, now, according to Fleischer, 84. 
Griesbach (Proleg. in Nov. Testament. Edit. 2dam Sect. I. p. 19.) doubts the cor- 
rectness of the assertion; he and Wetstein cite it under the designation JV. 4. 
Evang.—9, Reg. 2871, Fleischer 106, contains the whole New Testament ex- 
cept the Apocalypse ; in Griesbach and Wetstein it is designated n. 5. in all the 
classes—e, Reg. 3425, Fleischer 112, the whole New Testament excepting the 
Apoc.; in Wetstein and Griesbach always n. 6.—s, Reg. 2866, Fleischer 71, Gos- 
pels; in Wetstein and Griesbach τ. 7.—t, a Codex, for which Wetstein cites 
two MSS., Reg. 2242 Gospels, and 2241 Paul, Acts and Cath. Epistles. The 
Gospels and Paul are numbered 8 in Wetstein ; the Acts and Cath. Epistles 50. 
But 2241 contains, according to Fleischer, not only the Acts, Paul and the Cath. 
Epistles, but the whole New Testament, and is now n. 47, but to appearance 
once had the number 2242, probably by mistake. There existed however in the 
Royal Library a MS. of the Gospels with the N. 2242, now 49. Now 224], at 
present N. 47, was not in the Royal Library till long after Stephens’ time, till 
the year 1687; hence Griesbach conjectures that 2242, n. 49, might once have 
contained the Acts and Cath. Epistles, which however have been misplaced. 
(Proleg. in Nov. Testament. Ed. 2. Sect. I. p.21.)—n, is certainly Reg. 2861 of the 
Gospels, now 63 or L.—®, is Coisl. 200, containing the New Testament, except 
the Apocalypse ; in Wetstein and Griesbach it is n. 38 in the Gospels, 23 in 
Paul, and 19 in the Acts and Cath. Epistles.—c, or Reg. 2870, Fleischer 102, ac- 


΄ 


184 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 

of the New Testament appeared with Stephens’ olive in 8vo. (without 
the name of the place where it was printed, though it is believed to have 
been Geneva,) accompanied by the Vulgate and the version of Eras- 
mus. This was the first edition which contained the division into ver- 
ses, invented by Stephens. ... . “Novum Testamentum ad vetustissi- 
ma exemplaria MSC. excusum : adjecta duplici translatione: in interiore 
quidem margine veteris interpretis, in intertore Desiderii Erasmi.” . « « 
“Quod autem per quosdam, ut vocant, versiculos,” says the Preface, 
“opus distinximus, id vetustissima exemplaria ,.. . secuti fecimus. “We 
have repeatedly remarked that ancient MSS. are sometimes. found di- 
vided into small sections in some degree similar to our verses. 

In 1569, appeared another edition by his son Robert. “Luteti@ ex 
officina Rob. Stephani typographi regii, typis regiis mpix1x.” 16mo. 
At the end are appended select various readings under the title: “Se- 
lecte variantes ex Stephani tertid.” ‘ 

All these editions possessed inestimable value in their day, although 
in reality they are extremely defective, as all first attempts of a novel 
description must be. Before this period a Codex, (which was now and 
then selected with discrimination, but frequently taken at hap-hazard,) 
was transcribed by some copyist, who collated a few MSS. with it in or- 
der to obtain assistance in illegible or doubtful passages, or to adopt here 
and there a reading which struck his fancy. Such was the case like- 
wise in regard to these printed editions. The editors seized upon the 
best MSS. in their vicinity, without the slightest knowledge of the criti- 
cal stores which were within their reach in the obscurity of libraries, of 
the various critical phenomena occurring in the New Testament, or of 
the proper principles on which to proceed. And however superior in 
learning they may have been to the transcribers before them, they yet 
always acted without plan, amended like them according to their own 
fancy and private opinions, and in this respect were not even on a foot- 
ing with the Greek copyists, since they knew less in respect to the char- 
acteristics which determined the age of MSS, 

To us of the present day these editions would be far more valuable 
had each editor merely printed some one ancient MS. faithfully and 
carefully, without any exercise of criticism; if, 6. g., (the Complutensi- 
an editors had given us the Rhodian Codex, as Hearne has given the 

\ 


- 


cording to Wetstein and Griesbach, 9 in Paul’s Ep. and 7 in the Acts and Cath. 
Epistles.—ca, Acts and Cath. Epistles. n. 8, Paul 10, in Wetstein and Griesbach ; _ 
it isnot known what has become of it.—z?, Reg. 2862, of the Gospels, now 83 

according to Fleischer. Griesbach, however, does not think these numbers per- 
fectly certain. The readings are cited by him and by Wetstein under the desig- 
nation n. 9. Evang.—ty, according to Marsh (last ed.) is Cantabrig. kk. 6. 4. See 
“Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis in vindication of one of the Translator’s notes to 
Michaelis’ Introduction. By the Translator of Michaelis.” Leips. 1795. 8vo. p. 
49—70.—10, of the Gospels, not Reg. 2885, but Victorian. 774, in the Library of St. 
Victor in Paris. (Griesbach Symb. Crit. P. 1. p. CKLIV—XLVL.,) in Griesbach 
Evang. τι. 120. ae, 2869, according to Fleischer 237, contains Paul’s Epist., 
Acts, Cath. Epist. Apoc. It was collated by Wetstein anew; according to 
him it is n. 12 of Paul, n. 10%0f the Acts and Cath. Epistles, and n. 2 of the 
Apoc.: so also in Griesbach.—zs, is, as;Griesbach says, ““ignotus Codex Apocalyp- 
seos.” The readings are cited by him and by Wetstein under the designation n. 
3. Apoc. — : 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 185 


Laudian Codex of the Acts or Woide the Alexandrian, simply accom- 
panied by a preliminary account of its appearance and condition. 

They therefore properly belong to the history of biblical literature 
and of the typography and cultivation of the 16th century, and may af- 
ford important information on other points; but they are of no use in 
the criticism of the New Testament, except in tracing back to their ori- 
gin the mistakes and false readings in our printed editions. 


+ § 57. 


There now arose a multitude of booksellers, who either reprinted 
some one of these four editions, or else prepared a new one from two or 
three of them. 

Christopher Plantin reprinted at Antwerp the edition of Alcala five 
times, in 1564, 1573, 1574, 1590, 1591, and it issued from his press af- 
ter his death in 1601 and 1612. Reprints of it appeared at Geneva in 
1609, 1619, 1620, 1628, 1632.' It was also reprinted in the Paris Pol- 
yglot, in the 9th and 10th vols., in 1645. Lastly, it was printed like- 
wise at Mentz in 1753 ; and to this edition Goldhagen subjoined various 
readings, among which are some from the Codex Molsheimensis, which 
still remained uncollated. 

The editions of Erasmus were reprinted by Wolfius Cephaleus, Ar- 
gentorati, 1524, ϑνο. ; by Froben and Episcopius, 1545, 4to. “Erunwdy 
ἐν βασιλεία nag “/eowviuw Φροβηνίῳ καὶ Nixohaw ᾿Επισκοπῖῳ, 
ἐτεῖ τῆς ϑεογονίας agus. Also by Heerwagen, Basle 1545, folio ;* by 
Nicholas Brylinger, Gr. and Lat., Basle 1546, and 1550, 8vo.; by Vogelin, 
Gr. and Latin. Lipsi@ imprimebatur per Andream Schneider typis 
Voegelianis, 1570; and by Leonard Osten,Gr. and Lat., Basle 1588, 
8νο. 

Among the reprints of Erasmus, however, two are so distinguished, 
that it would be wrong to confound them with the rest. The first is 
that of Simon Colinzus, Paris 1534, which indeed recognises that of 
Erasmus as its basis, but is not without merit of its own. The editor 
consulted ancient MSS. himself, and among them was Victorian. 774, 
which Stephens afterwards denominated cd, in Griesbach 120 of the 
Gospels, or else a MS. nearly allied to this, viz. Reg. 2865", in Gries- 
bach 119. Inthe Acts, the Pauline Epistles and the Catholic, he col- 
lated a MS. which Stephens subsequently designated ea.2_ From these 
copies and others, it seems, he altered the Erasmian text and, as he 
thought, often improved it. This edition was earlier than the first, of 
Stephens, and might have disputed the palm with it, had it been support- 
ed by the public favor. But no one reprinted or followed it, and it there- 
fore remained one of the secondary editions. 

The other is that of James Bogard, who in 1543 followed the New 
Testament of Erasmus, with some alterations, particularly in the Apo- 
calypse, subjoining an appendix from Steph.'c0.4 

1 Le Long Biblioth. Sacra Ed, Masch. P. I. p. 281—293. 


2 Millius Proleg. n. 1153. * 


3 Bengel, Introd. in Cris. N. Test. ὃ 36. p. 435. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. P. I. 
p. CXLVI.—CLIV. 


4 Wetstein, Prol. p. 142. 


186 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


The Biblia Antwerpiensia Philippi Regis 1571, 72,! was based on 
the Bible of Alcala, Erasmus being consulted. So also, the Plantinian 
Editions of 1572 and 1584. fol., with the interlineary version of Arias 
Montanus ;? the Raphelengian at Leyden, 1591, 16mo.; and that of 
Comelin, with the same interlineary version, in 1599, large folio. ' 

From the Erasmian and Aldine editions were derived the Hagenau 
edition: ‘in edibus Thoma Anselmi Badensis, 1521 mense martis;” that 
of Strasburg, by Fabricius Capito, 1524; the editions of John Bebel, 
with the preface of Gicolampadius, at Basle 1530 and 1535. 8vo.; and 
those of Thomas Plater in 1538, 1540, 1543, and 1544,? at Basle in 
8vo. 

The following was a reprint of Stephens’ first edition: Τῆς καινῆς 
διαϑήκης ἅπαντα, Novum Testam. Parisiis, impensis vidue Arnoldi 
Birkmanni 1549, 16mo. One described by Le Long, (Ed. Masch. P. 
I. p. 215,) is said to agree perfectly in appearance with this, except that 
on the title-page there is the name of Haultin instead of Birkmann.* 

The Wechelii faithfully reprinted the third ed. of Stephens in 1601, 
folio, with various readings in the. margin. Still earlier in 1597, folio, 
they had printed the third and fifth editions of Stephens together, plac- 
ing the various readings in the margin of Stephens’ third edition beneath 
the text, and subjoining readings from the Bible of Alcala and the Vul- 
gate: “Ad Novum Testamentum quod attinet,” says the Preface, “ex- 
emplar Roberti Stephani typographi regii, patris et filit, secuti sumus, 
atque varias lectiones, que non tanium in eo exemplari ex codicibus regiis 
collecte continebantur, sed et in Complutensi et in aliis editionibus, et 
quorundam adnotationibus reperiri potuerunt, adjict curavimus.” These 
and especially the Aldine editions are the source of the Margo Weche- 
liorum, which Francis Junius composed, and to which great importance 
has sometimes been attached. 

Stephens was followed likewise by the V. I. C. Testamentum Gece, 
collatis non paucis venerand@ fidei exemplaribus, accuratissima cum 
lima editum per Nicol. Bryling. MDLXIII. 8vo. In the margin, as 
in Stephens’ third edition, there are various readings, which are in re- 
ality selected from the latter ; yet the marks by which Stephens designa- 
ted the MSS. are omitted. ‘There are also noted some various read- 
ings which are not found in Stephens; 6. g. Matt. 2: 2, πρυσκυνῆσαν 
αὐτόν. 5: 11 εἴπωσι πᾶν πονηρὸν καϑ' ὑμῶν. 6: 34 μεριμνήσει ἑαυ- 
τῆς. 9:4 καὶ εἰδὼς ὁ ᾿Πησοῦς. 15: 89 ἀνέβη. 17: 35 τὰ τέλη. 19: 24 


1 Bengel, Introd. in Cris. N. Test. p. 453, ὃ 36. Comp. Wetstein Prol. p. 
160. 


2 Curcelleus Pref. in Ν. T. Wetstein Prol. p. 151. 


3 Masch (Le Long Bib. Sacr. P.I. p. 200) doubted the existence of the edi- 
tion of mpxxiv. It is, together with the other edition of Plater, in the Library 
of our University, and the editions of xx111 and xxiv resemble each other in 
every respect, exceptin date. The title, the dedication, ‘‘Docto et pioM. Se- 
verino Erizberger Basileensis Ecclesia communi diacono, Joannes Gastius Brisa- 
censis Theologie Candidatus S. D., also the preface, ‘in sacrarum literarum 
lectionem Johannis (Ecolampadii exhortatio,” the text, the numbering of the pa- 
ges, the subscription, are the same. The one in our Library is dated, like that of 
xLu1, in the month of March: ‘‘Basilee per Thomam Platerum, impensis Rein- 
hardz Beck. A. mpxuiv mense Martio. , 


4 Marsh's Notes to Michaelis’ Introd. I. Vol. p. 426. Germ. translation, 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 187 


εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐβανῶν εἰσελϑεῖν. 21:30 καὶ κύριε. . . ἐγὼ 
ὑπάγω. 25: 22 ἐχέρδησα ἐν αὐτοῖς. These I have observed in Mat- 
thew; I find most of them, however, in Aldus, and the rest are, it would 
seem, taken from the Vulgate. 

With these are to be reckoned Crispin’s edition and Vogel’s of 1564, 
with which I am not acquainted. The Vogelian at Leipsic, 1564, says 


J. Ὁ. Michaelis, and the Crispinian atGeneva 1552, follow Stephens 
throughout. 


§ 58. 


Since the time of Stephens biblical criticism had as yet made no ad- 
vance ; for all these reprints added nothing from MSS. yet uncollated 
to the fine collection which the former procured by means of his son. 
Nor did any one undertake to prepare a critical edition by making 
a proper use of the apparatus which was within his reach. Stephens 
himself wanted confidence for this, and only reprinted the fifth edition 
of Erasmus with some alterations, scattering his various readings in the 
margin for the advantage of any one among his purchasers who might 
choose to make use of them. 

Suchan one was Theodore Beza, a pupil of John Calvin, who appro- 
priated to his own use the collations for which Stephens was indetled 
to his son Henry, and obtained, I know not from what quarter, an Ara- 
bic version, and also the Syriac one which had been sometime publish- 
ed through the laudable assiduity of Widmanstad. With these he be- 
gan to criticise the text and to amend former editions, particularly that 
of Erasmus. It has been Beza’s lot to be frequently much commended, 
and frequently much censured ; both with equal reason. His emenda- 
tions are often sensible; but his means for such an undertaking were 
too scanty, and no principles were as yet established in respect to their 
application. 

His first edition was published without the name of the place where 
it was printed (Geneva,) by Henry Stephens: “Jesu Christi D. N. 
Novum Testam. etc. Anno MDLXV. excudebat Henricus Stephanus 
illustris viri Huldrici Fuggeri typographus.” 'The Greek text has by 
its side two Latin versions, the Vulgate and his own, and notes below, 
sometimes critical and sometimes exegetical. The dedication is to Eliz- 
abeth, queen of England, and in it he asserts that he made use of 25 
MSS.: “Ad hec omnia accessit ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum v1- 
GINTI QUINQUE plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus pene impres- 
sis ab Henrico Stephano, ejus filio, et paterne sedulitatis herede quam 
diligentissime collatum.” In 1576 a second followed, by the same prin- 
ter; also a third, fourth and fifth in 1582, 1589 and 1598. In the se- 
cond he mentions only septemdecim MSpta.; but in the fourth and fifth 
novemdecim. By claiming in the first edition to have used 25 MSS., 
which in the second ‘dwindle down to 17, he has drawn on himself se- 
vere reprehension, even from his friends. 

Yet I do not think that he was so inconsiderate as, after exaggerating 
somewhat in the first edition, to have forgotten himself in the second. 
It is probable, as has been alleged in his exculpation, that in the first 
edition he wrote XV, which the compositor mistook for XXV, and put 


188 EDITIONS OF THE N. ia | 

viginti quinque at length ; for there are 15 in Stephens’ margin, without 
reckoning the Complutensian edition. By reckoning this, as Stephens 
did, together with the Codex Claromontanus, he would have septemde- 
cim. He afterwards obtained an antiquissimus Codex MST., mentioned 
by him in his last two editions ; by this the number is increased to 18. 
He could not have made nineteen, however, without reckoning the 
Cod. Cantabr. (which had meanwhile come into his possession ) twice, 
once among Stephens’ and once by itself. 

Beza gave a different character to the text from that which it had 
had hitherto, and was the real author of the Teztus Receptus. His 
learning and the special recommendation of being Calvin’s pupil pro- 
cured him reputation among his sect, and his Recension was highly es- 
teemed in England,! and particularly in Holland and Switzerland. 

Meanwhile no one had particularly distinguished himself among the 
scholars of the Lutheran persuasion. Their absurd controversies with 
the papists employed too many pens and prevented them from cultivat- 
ing other departments of literature. 7Ὸ this is to be added the circum- 
stance that the trade in books was principally confined to Holland. The 
Elzevirs turned this circumstance to good account, and without saying 
a word of the author circulated this recension in every country and 
among all sects, in several neat and even elegant editions. . 

The first Elzevir edition appeared without preface or postscript. 
“Tugduni Bat. ex oficina Elzeviriana, Anno MDCXXIV,” 16mo. On 
the title-page there 1s only : “ex regtis aliisque optimis editionibus cum 
curd expressum.” 

The basis of this was certainly the text of the third edition of Rob- 
ert Stephens, as this was the basis of Beza’s; and hence those learned 
men who have remarked a great agreement between it and the third of 
Stephens are in the right.* But the editors follow Beza wherever they 
differ from Stephens. Wetstein has noted several passages in which 
the text deviates from Stephens, and presents instead Beza’s emen- 
dations. (Proleg. p. 151, 152.) Mill likewise perceived the variations, 
(Prol. p. 1307,) and if ne had collated Beza, he would have found 
most of them in him. Birch? has given a supplementary list of some 
from the Gospels and also from the other books of the New Testament, 
among which however are several which did not escape his predecessors, 
as Mark 6: 9, Luke 15: 26, John 8: 25, 13: 30, 18: 54; together with 
several indeed, which he first pointed out, and which, on recurring to 
Beza, I find in him: e. g. Matt. 21:7, Mark 8:3, Luke 7: 12,10: 19, and 
the most important one 17: 36; as also 18:3, John 6: 28, 9: 20, 14: 9, 18: 
20, 19: 30. Thus this fact, which I believe was first suggested by the 
Abbe Bengel, is sufficiently established. 

The second edition: ““AL καινὴ διαϑήκη, Novum TFestamentum. 
Ex regiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hdc novd expressum: cut quid 
accesserit prafatio docebit. Lugd. Bat. ex officina Elzeviriorum.” 


1 Tam acquainted it istrue with only one English reprint of Beza, in 1642, 
Cantabrig. folio. 

2 Le Long Bib. Saer. Ed. Masch. Ρ. I. p. 226. 

3 Birch Pref. ad IV. Evang. p. 4. Pref. ad var. lect. Actor. Epist. Pauli et 
Cathol. Haunia. 1798. Preef. ad var. lect. in Text. Apoc. Hauniss. 1800. 


\ 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT, 189 


4 

CIOIOCX XXIII. 12mo. and a similar one in 16mo. boldly announced 
themselves in the Preface as the textus receptus. ‘‘Textum ergo habes 
ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus.” 
As this assurance was credited, it soon came to be really well founded. 
These editions were soon followed by several others from this infallible 
press, in 1641, 1656, 1662, and in these five editions at least 8000 cop- 
ies were sent forth to the world. 

Stephen Curcelleus now appeared, and in order to restore the charm 
of novelty to these editions, selected various readings from the Wechelian 
margin, from some printed Bibles and a few MSS., and subjoined them 
as an appendix to an edition published in 1658 apud Danielem Elzevi- 
rium, and afterwards in an edition in 1675, inserted them beneath the 
text, without altering it otherwise in the least: “Que ad precedentes 
Elzevirianas expressa fuit, nullé prorsus in textu factd mutatione.” 

The Curcellzan edition became so profitable to the Elzevirs that, not- 
withstanding their frequent impressions, others also sought to derive ad- 
vantage from it; as, 8. g., Blaw, who reprinted the second edition of 
Curcelleus in the same year: ‘‘ Amstelodami ex officina Blaviana 
MDCLXXV. Sumpt. Societ.’” He had at a still earlier period evinced 
alike regard for the Elzevirs by reprinting their text of 1633: “‘Amstelo- 
dami apud Guil. Blaw. 1633. 12mo. 

That nothing might be lacking to promote.the universal reception of 
this text, the orthodox Father Morinus took the trouble of presenting it 
in a splendid edition, Paris 1628, to the French clergy. 

Moreover the booksellers Wetstein and Smith speculated with it in 

‘another way, out of charity to those poor sinners who could not well get 
along without a Latin translation. They printed by its side the version 
of Arias Montanus, and Leusden was called upon to superintend the 
edition, that it might be recommended by his name. Thus the text of 
the Elzevirs appeared anew, ‘‘ Amstelodami ex officina Wetsteniana, 
1698.” It was very often published in this form with these words on 
the title page, and likewise “‘ apud Wetsten. et G. Smith.” 

But for the further benefit of a learned public, they appropriated to 
their use the collation of a Vienna MS. (Lambec. 28.) made by Ger- 
hard von Mastricht, together with the principles of criticism which had 
been drawn up by this learned man in his leisure hours. Thus enrich- 
ed, the Curcellzan edition again appeared, ‘‘Amstelod. ex offic. Wetsten- 
tand,” in 1711, as also a second time, “ Amstelod. apud. J. Wetsten. 
et G. Smith,” 1735, 8vo. The text itself remained unaltered ; only, as 
they boast, it was printed with fewer errors: ‘“‘T'extum emendavi” says 
the Preface, “ad editionem tertiam Elzevirianam Anni 1638 a Cl. Leus- 
deno mendis repurgatam.’ The letters by which the author of the 
rules of criticism (XLIII Canones Critici) is designated on the title 
page, viz. G. Ὁ. T. M. D., signify Gerhardus de trajectu Mose Doctor. 

While the + ee δ the dextus receptus was rolling on and carrying 
everything with it, Beecler, it would seem, wished to signalize himself 
by recurring to the text of Robert Stephens. He published two edi- 
tions of it: ““H καινὴ διαϑήκη. Novum Testamentum. Accessit 
prologus in Epistolas δ. Ap. Pauli ex antiquissimo MSC. Argent. ex 
offic. Stedelii A. CIOTICXLYV. and LX. in 12mo. It seems, however, 
that the first was merely provided with a new title page and sold as a 


1900 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMEN'T. 
second. He says inthe Preface: ‘‘ collatis etiam MSC. membranis, de 
quibus ad calcem libri.” The MS., according to his description at the 
end, contained the Acts, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, with the 
Prologue of Euthalius to Paul’s Epistles, which he printed in the appen- 
dix. But Becler, as Bengel has already remarked, made no use of this 
MS. in regulating the text. I have taken pains to convince myself of , 
this by investigation. His MS., it is well known, went to Rome, where 

᾿ς Zacagni made use of it for his edition of Euthalius. Beecler, however, 
confined himself to the t¢eztus receptus, only making alterations here 
and there according to Stephens’ third edition. He adopted the read- 
ings of Stephens again in the following passages: Acts 16: 17, Rom. 
12: 11. 1 Cor. 15: 23.2 Cor. 5: 4. 11: 1. Phil. 1: 23. Apoe. 3: 12. 4: 
10. 5: 9. 8: 5. 11: 1, 2. 13: 3, 5. 19: 1, 6. 20: 4. 91: 16. 


§ 59. 


While the Dutch were abusing the text according to their own good 
will and pleasure, in another country it passed from the hands of trades- 
men and their assistants into those of men of learning. It was in Eng- 
land that it met with this good fortune. Walton and other learned indi- 
viduals associated themselves together for the purpose of editing the 
London Polyglot. This was to contain the Syriac, Arabic, Authiopic 
and Persian versions of the New Testament ; aids to criticism of no 
small value. 

The Greek text was treated with much more care than could have 
been expected in a work on a plan so extensive. ‘The Dutch creed in 
regard to the teztus receptus had no influence over Walton and his asso- 
ciates. He adopted the third edition of Stephens as the basis of his 
text, and placed below it the readings of the celebrated Alexandrian 
Codex A. The New Testament made its appearance in this way, 
“ Londini MDCL VII,” in the 5th vol. of the Polyglot. 

The 6th vol. was appropriated to the purpose of presenting numerous 
readings of Greek MSS., most of which had not before been collated. 
Mill (Proleg.n. 1372,) reckons them by numbers up to sixteen, to 
which, that they may be better recognized, we subjoin their designa- 
tions in Wetstein and Griesbach.—WV. J. Cantabr. D.—II. Ep. Paul. 
D.—III. Evang. 59.—IV. Epist. Paul. 30.—V. Evang. 64.—VI. 
Evang. 62.—VII. Evang. 61. Paul. 40. Act. et Ep. Cath. 34.— VIII. 
Evang. 56.—LX. Ep. Paul. 39. Act. et Ep, Cath. 33—X. Evang. 57. 
Paul. 41. Act. et Ep. Cath. 35—XT. Ep. 43.—XII. Evang. 58.— 
XU. Act. Ep. Cath. 36.—XIV. Act. Ep. Cath. 37.—XV. Evang. 
47.—XVI. Evang. Joann. 96. ' Lastly the Velezian readings were like- 
wise inserted.! 

As to the rest, the editors of this valuable work contented themselves 
with the merit of laying their treasures before the learned world with- 
out exercising any criticism upon them. 


1 They have this name from Peter Faxard, Marquis of Velez, who was said 
to have collected them from 16 Greek MSS.; but it is now ascertained that they 
were extracted from the Vulgate and translated into Greek. La Cerda first dis- 
closed this in his 4dv. Sacr. Lugdun. 1626. fol. The fraud is most fully demon- 
pclae ΤῊ Marsh in the Appendix to his learned Notes on Michaelis’ In- 
trod. Vol. 1. 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 191 


! : 

But the numerous variations in MSS., which were disclosed by this 
work, disturbed the minds of many, and particularly, it would appear, 
that of the venerable Dr. John Fell, afterwards Bishop of Oxford. He 
entered deeply into an investigation of this point, collated several MSS. 
himself, and edited a New Testament, with a preface in which he en- 
deavors to quiet the apprehensions of his readers. It appeared with the 
title: Zo καινῆς διαϑήκης ἅπαντα. Novi Testamenti libri omnes. 
Accesserunt parallela scripture loca, necnon variantes lectiones ex plus 
100 MSS. Codicibus, et antiquis versionibus collecte, e theatro Sheldon- 
tano. A. ἢ. MDCXXV. 8υο. : 

He used as its basis, as he says in the Preface, the edition of Cur- 
celleus, in which he found Stephens’ readings and a part of the Wech- 
elian, and he united with them the collections in the London Polyglot. 
He himself, moreover, instituted a collation of 12 hitherto unexamined 
MSS. in the Bodleian Library ; he procured the collation of two in the li- 
brary at Dublin, of four others from France, and from Thomas Marshall the 
readings of the Coptic and Gothic versions. ΤῸ these he subjoined the 
various readings which Caryophilus had collected from 22 Roman MSS.! 

On the whole, we come to rather unfavorable conclusions respecting 
the hundred MSS. of which he boasts on the title page, since the Vele- 
zian are spurious, and those of the Wechels and of Stephens are identi- 
cal. 

It is more to the credit of this prelate that he incited Mill to employ 
his talents upon the New Testament, constantly animated his persever- 
ance and energy, and afforded him his own efficient aid; that he did 
all that was in his power to cast his own work into the back-ground, and 
to cause himself to be surpassed by another, that science might be the 
gainer. Mill himself, speaking in his Prolegomena of the death of 
this illustrious man, tells with deep emotion, what a noble benefactor 
he possessed in him, and how much aid he lost by his decease. 

Mill did not merely collect the various readings and write them be- 
side or beneath the textof Stephens, (for he took Stephens’ third edi- 
tion as the basis of his,) without stating from what MSS. they came, 
where these MSS. were preserved, and what were their peculiarities, but 
he told the locality of these documents, and sometimes the numbers 
which they bore in the various libraries, and designated each by a pe- 
culiar mark for his own edition under which he quoted its readings, so 
as to inform his readers of the source of each of the variations he pre- 
sented. He moreover, whenever and so far as it was possible, gave an 
account of each MS., as to its age and peculiarities, the accuracy with 
which it was written and its deficiencies. He did not collate them only 
here and there, and in particular passages, but in general made a con- 
tinued collation of them from beginning to end. 


Car ophilus, a native of Crete, collected these readings by com- 
mand of Urban VIII. for the purpose of using them in an edition of the New 
Testament. This intention was dropped, and Possinus afterwards published them 
in his Catena in Evang. Marci. Rome 1673, folio. These readings have some- 
times been regarded as twin-brothers of the Velezian; but Birch discovered 
some of the MSS. which Caryophilus used, and has thus saved his credit. (Pro- 
leg. ad IV. Evang. Haunie 1788. p. XXXVI.—XLIV., and Proleg. in Var. Lect. 
Act. et Epist. p. IX, Haunie 1798. 8yo. 


192 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


By these peculiarities his undertaking was essentially distinguished 
from all previous ones, and led the world to a detailed acquaintance with 
the text, its various fortunes in various MSS., and the numerous critical 
helps from which a more perfect exhibition of it might sometime or oth- 
er be deduced. 

He was himself deeply sensible of the utility of this mode of proce- 
dure ; he would not go to work like his predecessors, blindly and at ran- 
dom. He could decide respecting the admissibility of MSS. and the 

Importance of their evidence on proper grounds, from their age and val- 
ue ; or, after having examined so considerable a number of MSS., it 
was even safe for him to determine according to the majority of voi- 
ces. 

He had besides, by his great familiarity with MSS., acquired a pecu- 
liar sagacity in detecting additions, interpolations and suspicious altera- 
tions, by which his decision was often happily directed. 

He examined anew most of those MSS. which Walton collated in the 
English libraries, and which we have before enumerated, as well as sev- 
eral of those from which Bp. Fell extracted readings. He collated be- 
sides Gosp. 50.—Gosp. 51., Paul. 38., Acts, Cath. Ep. 32.—Gosp. 52, 
53, 54, 55.—Gosp. 60., Apoc. 10.—Gosp. 65, 66, 67, 68.—Gosp. 69., 
Paul. 37., Acts, Cath. Ep. 31., Apoc. 14.—Gosp. 70, 71, 75. He also 
obtained from others collations of K. Cyprius and Colbert. Gosp. 27, 
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 32. and Gosp. 91. Thus he himself examined and 
extracted readings from most of the MSS. (from N. 45. according to . 
Wetstein and Griesbach’s designations up toseventy,) of the Gospels or 
whole New Testament existing in England, besides procuring the col- 
lation of many foreign ones by the hands of others. 

In Acts he collated E or Laud. 3; in the Acts, the Epistles general- 
ly, and the Apocalypse, the following : 26 Paul. 21 Acts, Cath. Ep.— 
28 Paul. 23 Acts, Cath. Ep. 6 Apoc.—31 Paul. 25 Acts, Cath. Ep. 
7 Apoc.—32 Paul. 26 Acts, Cath. Ep.—33 Paul. 27 Acts, Cath. 
Ep.—34, Paul., 28, Acts, Cath. Ep. 8 Apoc.—36 Paul. 30 Acts, Cath. 
Ep.—47 Paul.—From others he obtained the collation of E. Sangerm. 
Ep.—Colb. 17, Paul.—35 Paul. 29 Acts, Cath. Ep.—44 Paul. 38 
Acts, Cath. Ep.—45 Paul. 39 Acts, Cath. Ep. 11 Apoc.—46 Paul. 
40 Acts, Cath. Ep. 12 Apoc. Of the Evangeliaria he collated: 83—4 
—d—15—19—20—2]. 

He further made use of nearly all the ancient versions, and the cita- 
tions of the fathers of the Church, which he collected with great indus- 
try. 

The vast treasure which our indefatigable scholar had thus accumu- 
lated by the labor of thirty years he presented to the world in 1707, ac- 
companied by excellent Prolegomena. Oxonii e theatro Sheldoniano, 
fol. 

Mill survived but a few days the completion of his extremely labori- 
ous and meritorious work, which gave rise to a new and better era in 
criticism. 

Soon after, Ludolph Kuster procured the collation of certain MSS. 
at Paris, viz. C or Ephram, M or Des Champs, Evang. 9—10—11 
—12—13—14—15, according to Wetstein’s numeration. He procur- 
ed from other quarters the collation of Gosp. 78. Griesb.—Paul. 48, 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 193 


Acts, Cath. Ep. 42,—Apoc. 13. The only MS. which he himself colla- 
ted was B. Ep. Pauli, or Bernerianus. With these he sought to give 
peculiar recommendation to a reprint of Mill’s work under his superin- 
tendence at Amsterdam in 1710. fol. This edition was again reprint- 
ed Lipsia 1723. fol. Kiister’s merit in regard to this edition is not very 
great,and it was an important oversight that he did not carefully insert 
Mill’s Appendiz. 


§ 60. 


The New Testament had encountered various fortunes in other coun- 
tries before coming to Germany ; and meanwhile no one of our country- 
men had acquired any considerable reputation by his labors upon it. 

Bengel is the first of the Germans who gained honor in this depart- 
ment of learning. He was occupied for several years during his minis- 
terial duties, in the study of Mill’s New Testament, and soon consult- 
ed some Latin and Greek MSS.; particularly Evang. 83—84—85—the 
two last of which contain only fragments of the Gospels; also Ev. 86 
at Presburg, 97 of John and the Evangeliar.24. Also 54, Epist. of 
Paul to the Romans,—55, Paul., 46, Acts, Cath. Ep.—53, Paul., res- 
pecting which, see the following monograph: “ Cod. Uffenbach. qui 
fragm. ad Hebreos continet, recensus, et specimen a@re exsculptum (by 
Dr. Henke). Helmstadii 1809.”—52, Paul. Acts, Cath. Ep. 45., Rev. 
16.—and Augustanus 7, “chartaceus, continens Apocalypsin” as he 
says “cum exegesi Andree Casareensis,’ which Wetstein and Griesbach 
neglected to mention in their catalogues. He procured through oth- 
ers the collation of Wetst. 87, of V, one of the Moscow MSS. of Mat- 
thei, and hasty extracts of readings from Basil. E. as also Ev. Bas. 1 
and 2. 

But his merit did not consist in this; he collated only enough to de- 
velope his critical talents. But he was not indebted to circumstances or 
to valuable aids; his merit was based on himself and his own genius. 

By long study he acquired a thorough knowledge of all the phenom- 
ena of the text, and was so well acquainted with the peculiarities and 
habits of the numerous critical documents as to deduce from his obser- 
vations new principles of criticism for his guidance. 

He first discovered that anumber of MSS. coincided incertain char- 
acteristics and continued tolerably alike throughout. He distinguish- 
ed for the time being two families of MSS., one of which he called the 
African and the other sometimes the Asiatic. This observation led 
him to simplify his mode of procedure in criticism, as all the various 
testimonies were easily referred to a few classes; and thus he really ob- 
tained rules, and gave the first impulse to the progress of criticism, the 
influence of which will last though his Bible should be forgotten. 

His edition of the New Testament which was published at Tubin- 
gen by Cotta in 1734, 4to., exhibits in the outset nothing more than the 
text with select readingsin the margin below; but an Apparatus follows 
the text, the first section of which presents rules of criticism, the se- 
cond details authorities for the selected readings, and the third answers 
some objections which might be made to his undertaking. 

Meanwhile a young and active man, possessed of more than ordina- 
9 


cad 


194 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


ry knowledge and qualiftcations was preparing to outstrip the Wurtem- 
burg abbot. This was John James Wetstein of Basle. He had in 
1730 announced his New Testament at Amsterdam by Prolegomena, of 
which Bengel had taken frequent notice ; but the work itself first ap- 
peared at Amsterdam in two folio volumes in 1751-2. 

That he had collected around him the whole apparatus of his prede- 
cessors is very evident; he also frequently went back to their sources 
himself, inspected their documents with his own eyes, and moreover ex- 
amined and collated again some MSS. which Walton, Fell and Mill had 
used. England was however too thoroughly gleaned; he therefore di- 
rected his eyes to France, which offered him new treasures. His own 
native city, too, furnished him with some fine old copies which were not 
by any means sufficiently known. 

He described the MSS. and designated their abode, with the numbers 
which they bore in the places where they were. It is true he did not 
detail their character and peculiarities with the minuteness of Mill ; but 
he carefully investigated their age and determined it frequently more sa- 
gaciously, in a palwographical view, than Mill. He likewise gave to 
each of them in his edition a peculiar mark under which he cites its 
readings. 

We will not speak here of his gleanings or hasty examinations in Eng- 
land ; they constitute the smallest part of his merit. The list of the 
MSS. newly collated by him begins with a splendid document, (for we 
need not make any account of what Kuster extracted from it,) viz. C 
or 1905, now 9 among the Paris MSS., which contains all the books of 
the New Testament, though with great chasms, and for well known rea- 
sons is well adapted to subject the eyes and the patience to severe trial. 
Then comes E of the Gospels, or Basileens. VI. 21. Of more modern 
MSS. there are (in the order of their numbers): 1 Basil., New Testa- 
ment, without the Apocalypse.—2, Gospels. Of the Coislinian MSS., 
34, Gospels,—35, Gospels,—18, Paul. 14, Acts, Cath. Ep. 17, Rev. 
—36, Gospels,—37, Gospels,—38, Gospels 23, Paul. 19 Acts, Cath. 
Ep.—39, Gospels,—40, Gospels,—41, Gospels of Matt. and Mark ; 
“‘istos octo codices” says he, ‘‘ quad potut diligentia contuli.” He further 
collated 72, Gospels, (before the MS. went to England)—89, (in Gries- 
bach 90,) the whole New Testament with the exception of the Apoca- 
lypse, (which however he made use of only in the Gospels)—91, (in 
Griesbach, 92,) the Gospel of Mark—93, (in Griesbach 94,) Mark and 
Luke. Likewise Cod. L, which fine MS., however, he only examined 
cursorily. From others he procured 44, Gospels,—73, Gospels,—in 
Griesbach 73, and 74. 

The following Evangeliaria were collated anew by himself; I—2— 
7—8—9—10—11—12—13— 14—15—16—-17—all Colbertine, and a 
Lectionarium, Scaligeri Grec-Arab., of the Gospels, Paul’s Ep., Acts, 
and Cath. Ep., throughout z. 6. 

Of the Pauline Epistles he collated D, or Claromontanus, twice ; 
likewise E, or Sangerman. and F’, formerly Augiensis, a fine MS. Be- 
sides, 2 Basil., Paul., Acts, Cath. Ep.—4 Basil., Paul, Acts, Cath. Ep. 
—7 Basil., Paul.—16 Paul., 11 Acts and Cath. Ep.,4 Apoc. Cooisli- 
nian MSS. besides those before mentioned: 19 Paul. 16 Acts, Cath. 
Ep.—20 Paul.—21 Paul. 17 Acts, Cath. Ep. 19 Apoc.—22 Paul. 18 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 195 


Acts, Cath. Ep. 18 Apoc. Also, 44 Paul. 38 Acts, Cath. Ep. Of un- 
collated English MSS.: 25 Paul.—26 Paul., 21 Acts, Cath. Ep.—27 
Paul. Mill was indeed acquainted with 25 of the above, but does not 
reckon them in his list. From others he procured: Paul. G. and H.— 
Apoc. 26—27—28—and Apoc. B. Basilanor., of which last however 
he could make but little additional use. In the whole there are more 
than forty Codices which were collected by him for the first time, or for 
the first time properly, without reckoning those collations which he pro- 
cured from others. Besides the ancient versions already known, he 
first brought forward and employed the Philoxenian version. 

Opinions have been different in regard to Wetstein’s accuracy, as al- 
so in regard to his conduct and creed, and even his learning. He was 
probably, like all mortals, not always equally energetic in so laborious 
and dry employments ; but when it was worth his while, e. g. in respect to 
Cod. Cor Ephraem, he achieved wonders, as we are assured by one who 
has followed his steps with care and profound knowledge of the subject.! 
He has, however, fallen into mistakes, but oftener where he used ma- 
terials furnished by others, than where he investigated and extracted for 
himself. 

In my opinion, however, he may justly be blamed for not adopting 
and appreciating Bengel’s excellent rules of criticism. 

On the other hand, a peculiar merit of Wetstein is too commonly 
overlooked. The rich collection of explanatory passages from profane 
authors, from fathers of the church and the Rabbinical writings, which 
he has incorporated into his New Testament, evinces a mind which of- 
ten saw further than the exegetes of his time, and perhaps, too, than 
some celebrated men of learning after him. I meddle not here with 
the doctrinal disputes in which he was involved. If he wasa heretic in 
the Calvinistic and Lutheran, he may have been one too, in the Catho- 
lic church; but even where no doctrine is directly involved, we may see 
from his’ collections, although he seldom expresses his own opinion, 
what were the views of a man who noted such parallel passages and se- 
lected them from his multifarious reading. 

May it not be in retaliation for the harsh judgments which he allow- 
ed himself to pass upon ethers, that he has sometimes been censured by 
those who have derived most benefit from his labors? [ὲ was a lament- 
able fate for a gifted and uncommonly learned man, that his native city, 
of which he was ar ornament, did not appreciate him during his life- 
time, and that after his death he was taken to task by those who enjoy- 
ed the fruits of his industry. 

Shortly afterwards Germany acquired a scholar who converted Wet- 
stein’s treasure to general use and even added to it; and who, at the 
same time, knew how to appreciate and carry out the critical observa- 
tions of Bengel. He confirmed the existence of certain recensions, which 
were followed by existing MSS. He speaks particularly of two of these, 
viz. the Alexandrian, as he terms it, and the Western ; and alludes also 
to a third, which in his opinion was of more modern date than the oth- 
ers, and probably of Constantinopolitan origin. In the practical exer- 
cise of criticism he excelled Bengel in this respect, that he had a finer 


1 Griesbach. Symb. Cr. P. I. p. VI. 


196 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


perception of the manner of individual writers and their peculiarities of 
diction, and selected his readings accordingly. It is easily seen that I 
am speaking of John James Griesbach. 

His gleanings after Wetstein’s collations and the new collations which 
he instituted, are treated at length in hisSymbole Critica. Hala. 1785. 
and Vol. IZ. 1793, which although published later than his New Testa- 
ment, may be regarded as the preface to it- His New Testament ap- 
peared at Halle in two octavo volumes; the first in 1777, the second 
earlier, in 1.778. 

With this Testament I have gained a very familiar acquaintance, and 
when a young student, and not able always to use Wetstein as { wish- 
ed, compared with it many folio volumes of the fathers of the church, 
in order to become familiar with the various phenomena of the text 
and their geographical relations. It was sometimes a source of perplex- 
ity that, when two readings are presented, one in the text and the oth- 
er in the margin between the text and the authorities, it is not always 
apparent for which of the two readings the authorities enumerated below 
are cited. Otherwise it was, as a manual, a perfect work for the time 
when it appeared. 

But it did not long continue thus valuable, for the industry of learned 
men was employed every where in searching for and bringing to light 
critical documents. Christian Frederick Matthei, Prof. of Profane 
Literature in the University at Moscow, endeavored to make the best 
possible use of his residence in a place rich in MSS., and made the world 
acquainted with many treasures of this kind which, but for him, would 
have long laid in obscurity, and probably never have been presented to 
the world with so much accuracy. 

Among a multitude of learned labors, by which the cause of classi- 
cal and patristical literature has been advanced, he collated with indefa- 
tigable application the MSS. which were deposited in the Library of 
the Holy Synod, or preserved in other Libraries in Moscow.! In his 
preface to the Catholic Epistles he names more than seventy MSS. 
which were within his reach; in the preface to the Epistles to the Co- 
rinthians, these were increased to eighty-one. ‘They soon rose still high- 
er, and, with those which he collated after his return to Germany, amount- 
ed in all to one hundred and three Greek MSS. ‘True, many of these 
contain only some one of the Evangelists, or a few of Paul’s Epistles, 
and some even mere fragments ; but among them are MSS. like & and 
I, comprehending the whole New Testament, some a half, and some a 
third, viz. the Acts and Cath. Epistles. A number of them are exceed- 
ingly valuable from their antiquity, as V and g. Moreover he selected 
useful annotations from such MSS. as were furnished with Scholia. 
The whole of this collection-he published in twelve volumes 8vo. from 
1782—8. 

He did not consult his MSS. in individual passages merely, but ex- 
amined them carefully throughout. He also gave good descriptions of 
them, and presented engraved speciniens of several, by which he has very 
much embellished his work, and also rendered it much more useful, as 


1 At the end of the Epist. ad Thessalonic, p. 272, he gives an account “de bib- 
liothecis et codicibus N. T. Mosquensibus in genere.” 


EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 197, 


by these aids he has facilitated the experienced reader’s judgment in 
regard to them. vibra , j 

No one can deny that he has acquired distinguished and imperishable 
merit in New Testament criticism. I can easily comprehend how a 
man who has spent the best part of his life in labor of this kind, should 
be so sensitive in regard to every slight censure, and therefore I suppress 
the wishes which I have felt in regard to him. It has always, however, 
been my earnest desire that it were in my power to expunge certain vi- 
olent passages from his work, that none of those who come after us may 
be disturbed in their esteem of a man who has so many valid claims 
to it. 

He had not yet published his last volume, when Chs. Alter, Profes- 
sor inthe Vienna Gymnasium, appeared before the public with 23 Greek 
MSS. belonging to the Royal Library. He took for the basis of his 
collation the MS. Lambec. N. I., (Nessel N. ΧΑ ΤΠ, and in Griesbach 
218,) which comprehends, together with the Old, the whole of the New 
Testament, excepting that it is defective from Rev. XIII to the end. 
This MS. he printed entire in his Ist vol., except the passages where it 
is manifestly erroneous, which he supplied from Stephens’ first edition. 
Yet, that we might have the Codex as it is, entire, he subjoined these 
errors also in the appendix. 

With this, in a 2d and 3d Vol., he collated the following MSS. ; two 
containing the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, viz. Wet- 
stein WV. 3 and Wetstein 75, (in Griesbach 76,) from which last Gerhard 
von Mastricht extracted readings in a superficial manner. Moreover, 
eight copies of the four Gospels, one of Matthew and the celebrated 
fragment of Luke, marked in Wetstein, V., and two Evangelistaria. 
Besides these, four copies of the Acts, Paul and the Cath. Ep., one of 
which contained the Apocalypse also; one MS. with 12 Pauline Epis- 
tles ; and two with the Apocalypse alone. To all this he added a new col- 
lation of the printed Coptic text and of some MSS. of the Sclavonic ver- 
sion; also some readings from the old Latin version. 

A description of most of these MSS., together with some specimens 
of them, had been given by Hermann Treschow in his “‘ T’entamen des- 
criptionis codicum vet. aliquot Grecorum Novi Federis Msptorum, qui 
in bibliotheca Cesarea Vindobonensi asservantur.” Haunie 1773, 8vo. 
Respecting those which Treschow has not described as e. g., Lambec. 
XXVIII. XXXII. XXXIII., we might reasonably have expected some 
information from the editor. The plan of this work, too, is of such a 
nature that the use of it is extremely inconvenient. It is well known, 
likewise, that Birch has examined some of these MSS. anew, and has 
occasionally presented us with readings from them which are not upon 
Alter’s list, so that, it seems to me, Birch» should have the praise of 
superior accuracy. Notwithstanding, Alter’s “ Movwm Testamentum 
Vindobonense,” drawn wholly from the treasures of the Royal Library, 
is a beautiful work. It appeared under the title: ‘“Nov. Testam. ad 
codicem Vindobonens. Grace cexpressum, varietatem Igctionis addidit 
Carolus Alter. Vienne 1787.” 8vo. 3 vols. 

This was indeed a golden age of criticism, when the learned emulat- 
ed each other in drawing forth MSS. from their concealment and pre- 
senting them to the general use of the world. Among these learned 


198 EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT. 


men Andrew Birch, Prof. at Copenhagen, claims peculiar merit. He 
examined a great number of MSS. for the Royal Danish edition of the 
New Testament. Some he collated partially; others, which seemed to be 
most deserving of such pains, throughout. First on the list is the cele- 
brated Vatican MS. 1209, called B in Criticism, to which he devoted 
especial pains in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Acts, the Pau- 
line and Catholic Epistles. He obtained through Woide the collation of 
Luke and John which had been made for Bentley. He likewise colla- 
ted twice Cod. Vat. 354. of the Gospels, written in 949 in uncial char- 
acters; Cod. Vat. 1067, likewise in uncial characters; Cod. Vat. 349. 
of the Gospels; Cod. Vat. 360; Urbino-Vat. 2, the Gospels, (which 
were taken according to the subscription from a very ancient copy,) twice 
carefully,—not to speak of the readings he extracted from the Roman 
MSS., from those of the Vienna Library, the Library of St. Mark at 
Venice, and those at Florence, or which he obtained through Molden- 
hauer from the MSS. of the Escurial, and through Hensler from the 
Library at Copenhagen. Adler also enriched his collection by collating 
for him the Gospels in the Syro-Hierosolymitan version, as he denomi- 
nates it, and by various readings from the other Syriac versions. Birch 
has given a description of the MSS. and criticisms upon them in the 
copious Prolegomena which precede his work. It appeared with much 
typographical elegance under the following title: “‘ Quatuor Evangelia 
Gre@ce cum variantibus a textu lectionibus codd. MSS. Bibliothece Va- 
ticane, Barberine, Laurentiane, Vindobonensis, Escurialensis, Hau- 
niensis Regie, quibus accedunt lectiones versionum Syrarum, Veteris, 
Philoxeniane et Hierosolymitane. Jussu et sumtibus Regis edidit An- 
dreas Birch. Haunie. A.MDCCLAXXVHL Excud. J. F. Schultz. 
Univ. Typogr. Ato. 

A large number of copies of this Ist. vol., and the materials prepared 
for the 2d., were destroyed by the unfortunate fire at Copenhagen in 
June 1795. Birch afterwards published in a separate form his colla- 
tions of the Acts, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, as also of the Apo- 
calypse.4 

Besides the Vat. MSS. 1209 and 1210, the collation of which is con- 
tinued in these volumes, Vat. 367, a very remarkable MS. of the Acts, 
the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, is collated with peculiar care; also 
Pio-Vat. 50 and Alerandrino- Vat. 29, of which last the portion beyond 
the Epistle to the Ephesians has been destroyed. Besides these, Bor- 
gian. 4 and Venet. 10, which include the Apocalypse, were completely 
collated by Engelbreth. The MSS. moreover, in the Vienna and oth- 
er libraries, which were examined only in particular chapters or Epistles, 
are very numerous. 

Of the Apocalypse the following, besides the two already named, were 
collated throughout: Vat. 366, Vat. 579, Vat. 1136, Vat. 1166, Alez.- 
Vat. 68, Pio- Vat. 50. 


1 “Varie lectiones ad textum Act. App. Epp. Cath. et Pauli ὁ codd. Grecis MSS. 
Biblioth. Vaticane etc. collecte ct edite ab Andrea Birch 8. S. Th. Doctore et Pro- 
fess. etc. Haunie. A. C. MDCCXCVIII.” 8νο. 

“Varie lectiones ad textum Apocalypse ex codd. Grecis MSS. etc. collecte et ed- 
δία ab Andrea Birth etc. Hauniea a. C. MDCCC. prostant apud Proft et Storch.” 


VERSIONS OF THE N. TEST. 199 


The treasure of critical apparatus which had been thus accumulat- 
ing was condensed, methodically arranged, and incorporated into a new 
edition of the Gr. Test. by a man whose uncommon qualifications for 
critical works of this kind we have before stated. With this work he 
adorned the evening of a laborious and praiseworthy life, and in it he 
left behind him an honorable memorial, which may perhaps be surpassed 
in respect to the critical materials it contains, (for these are daily increas- 
ing,) but hardly in regard to delicate and accurate criticism. It is en- 
titled : “Novum Testamentum Grace. Textum ad fidem codicum, version- 
um et patrum recensuit et lectionis varietatem adjecit 1). Jo. Jac. Gries- 
bach. Volumen I, IV Evangelia complectens. Editio secunda, emenda- 
tior multoque locupletior. Hale Saxon. ap. J. Jac. Curtii haredes et 
Londini apud Petrum Elmsly. 1796.” 8vo. The 2d vol.: “ Nov. Tes- 
tam.” (as before) “‘volum. 114 Acta, Epistolas App.,cum Apocalypst 
complectens. Edit. sec. Hale Saxon. et Londini apud Payne et Mack- 
inlay. 1806. 

The critical principles by which he was guided, he has unfolded in 
his Commentarius Criticus in textum Novi Testamenti. Particula Ima 
Jene MDCCCII. Particula 11. Jone MDCCCXI. Both parts ex- 
tend no further than through Matthew and Mark. 


CHAPTER VIII. 
VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


§ 61. 


It was by the means we have been considering, that the Greek text 
was handed down to us through a course of centuries after its first pub- 
lication ; thus were its copies multiplied by the invention of the art of 
printing ; such are the pains which have been bestowed upon it to re- 
store it as far as possible to its original state, which had been so greatly 
changed by the course of time; and such are the preparations which 
have been made for the future, which, it is to be hoped, will one day 
accomplish what has not yet been done. 

But we are in possession of documents which are much more an- 
cient than the oldest MSS., and are of peculiar value in promoting our 
object. They are not in Greek, but in the languages of foreign nations ; 
and could not, alone, restore to us a single Greek sentence, if the ori- 
ginal were lost. ; 

The original has been preserved ; but, through the discrepancies of 
MSS., it is so unlike itself, that we are obliged atthe outset to enquire 
what we shall select, and what discard. Now as we have before our 
eyes the Greek clauses and expressions respecting the choice or rejec- 


“2 
200 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


tion of which we are frequently in doubt, the documents we have men- - 
tioned may inform us whether their authors read a particular clause, or 
what phraseology or arrangement they found in the Greek copies of 
their day from which the versions were made. 

This is the service which may be rendered us by the ancient versions ; 
to this extent are they of use in criticism; and, so far as the antiquity 
of the testimony merits regard, some of them will even surpass the MSS. 
in authority. We are disposed, too, to ascribe to them further anjeze- 
getical value in respect to obscure passages, because their authors were 
pretty near the period, the place of residence, and the mode of thinking 
of the Biblical writers. 

This however can be the prerogative of immediate versions only ; for 
the mediate, i. e. those which were themselves made from versions, many 
indeed present the readings of the mother-version from which they 
sprang, but not those of the Greek text. ‘They may, too, contribute to 
explain their mother-version, but not the original text, for this they do 
not express. Above all, however, the editions of these versions must be 
prepared with such ability and critical fidelity, that we can rely upon 
their accuracy. 

We propose to arrange them, as far as possible, in the order of the 
countries to which they belong ; to speak first of the Asiatic, then of the 
African, and lastly of those which originated in Europe. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. 
THE FIRST AND MOST ANCIENT OF THEM. 


§ 62. 


Among the versions of the New Testament possessed by the Syrians 
in their native language, the Peschito, according to their unanimous de- 


claration, is the oldest. It is called {Damo οἷν e. the Literal, as some 


will have it, in order to denote its distinguish'ng characteristic. Yet it 
is by no means strictly literal ; but, without detriment to its fidelity, it 
exhibits a freedom inconsistent, it would seem, with this designation, or 
at least with the signification attributed to it. Abulfaragius, therefore, 
inclines to another interpretation of this word, and holds that this ep- 
ithet was applied to it because it regards accuracy more than beauty 
and elegance of language.! 


a: 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. 201 


ἢ allegorical sense.! The Chaldee form of 6105 is D5 and the Syriac 


Now. The version of the Old Testament was clearly derived from 
the Hebrew text, and therefore was most probably made by the Jews, 
from whom it received itsname. When the New Testament was ad- 
ded it was included with it under the same denomination. 

The Chaldee Targums (we speak of the two oldest) were easily ex- 
ecuted. Generally it was not even necessary to change the words, but 
enly their ferm; the Syriac, however, was frequently forced to choose 
other expressions and to follow its own grammatical construction, so 
that the version differed from the preceding Targums, and as it exhibit- 
ed the sense it became 01U, and from this characteristic, I imagine, 


was called 8.29. 


68. 


The translator made his version from the Greek. This is proved by 
the many words which he has retained from the Greek exactly in the po- 
sition which they occupy in the original, although frequently he might 
have used a pure Syriac expression. I have no where found so many 
of these as in the 27th chapter of Matthew, which is hence most prop- 
er to be cited as a specimen. V. 11, 12, seq. ἡγέμων. 6, τιμή. 7, ἀγ- 
οὖς, ξένος. 19, βήμα. 27, oreatiwrar, σπεῖρα. 28, χλαμύς. 30, πρόσ- 
ὠπον.5 38, λησταί. 48, ondyyos—no less than eleven words, all of which, 
except the title ἡγέμων, the Syriac translator had in his own language; 
and even for this last, as well as for the rest, he might probably have 
found an equivalent expression, if not an exactly correspondent one. 

It is not denied that these words were current in Syria after the do- 
minion of the Seleucid; but it is not at all probable that he would 
have used every one of these foreign words in preference to those of his 
mother-tongue, so frequently and exactly as they occur in the Greek 
Gospel, unless upon the supposition that he was led to do it by the Greek 
text which lay before him. In this chapter, moreover, Matthew has 
transferred some words from the Latin to the Greek, e. g. v. 26, φραγελ-- 
λώσας. 27, πραιτώριον. 65, 66, κουστωδία, which the Syrian faithfully 
transferred. This custom prevails throughout the New Testament, and 
the whole proves more fully what we have inferred from a single chap- 
ter of Matthew. " 

The translator has also now and then committed mistakes which could 
have been occasioned only by the Greek text; e.g. Matt. 11:19, καὲ 
ἐδικαιώϑη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὑτῆς, he translates, by her works, 
having read τεχνῶν for τέκνων ; in Matt. 23: 26, he renders τῆς παρ- 
owidos by rim or handle, which he would not have done had he not read 
awidos, or rather the unusual form magawidos; in Mark 6: 1, he read 
ἐκολλήϑησαν for ἠκολούϑησαν ; and in Luke 12: 42, ἔῤῥιψεν for ἔρ-- 
éngev. In Luke 5: 10, also, the translation of ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν is remark- 


1 Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologic. seu Clavis Sac. Scripture, Edit. IIT. in L. 
I. c. II. sect. 7. De sensu sac. script. p.233—37. Schickard, Bechinath Haperus- 
chim. Disput. VIta. p. 116. Buxtorf. Lexic. Talmud. Rabbin. 


2 The reading which he had here was ἐμπτύσαντες εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, 
which is also given by Cod. Vercellens, and Veronens. in Blanchini. 


202 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


pu shalt catch to life. In Acts 9: 1,he read ἔμπλεως instead of 
and 16: 29, αὐϑήσας, setting on fire, for αἰτήσας, asking. A 
mistake occurs in Acts 18:7, where he read instead of ovoue- 
te ᾿Ιούστου σεβομένου, the words, by the name of Titus the pious. 
Hence he divided thus: ONOM4A-T//0 TS-TOT-SEBOMENOYT, 
and prolonged the stroke at the top of the second / in ΤΟΎΣ, 
so astomake 7/7OYS. Inthe Epistle to the Romans, 2: 18, he 
changes διαφέροντα into συμφέροντα; in Galat. 2: 2, he must have 
read κατιδὼν τοῖς dox.. . . . instead of κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τοῖς δοκοῦσι, for he 
xy 
translated it OLAaQ2 7 showed it etc. ; in Eph. 6: 12, he changes ἐπου- 
ρανίοις into ὑπουρανίοις ; and in Philipp. 2: 16, λόγον ζωῆ into τόπον 
ξωῆς. In James 2:13, KAT'AK ATX ATAIEALEOS, he joined the 
last syllable of the verb to ἔλεος and read instead of -4/ the preposi- 
tion A4/-A/JEAEOS, and instead of KATAKAYXAT, KATAY- 
XETE, thus obtaining χαταύχετε Ov ἔλεος κρίσεως which sense he 
expresses in his version. 


§ 64. 


So far as is known, all the MSS. of the Peschito, one alone excepted, 
contain only the following of the Catholic Epistles, viz. that of James, 
the first of Peter and the first of John; 1. 6. four less than the Greek 
MSS. The Apocalypse likewise is wanting. ‘The four other Epistles 
in the Syriac version, the 2d of Peter, 2d and 3d of John, and Jude, are 
not by any means on a level with the Peschito, either in the mode of 
representing the original in a foreign tongue or in its other characteris- 
tics. They are constrained and laboriously literal, evincing no regard 
to purity of diction, no very clear insight into the meaning of the ori- 
ginal, and no great capacity on the part of the translator. Pocock 
found them in a MS. in the Bodleian Library, which contained the 
Acts and the three universally acknowledged Catholic Epistles, accord- 
ing to the old version, together with those of which we are speaking, 
which he published separately.! 

Dionysius Bar Salibi, a Syriac writer of the 12th century, says in his 
observations on the Philoxenian version of the Catholic Epistles, in the 
Preface to the 2d of Peter: “The 2d Epistle of Peter was not translat- 
ed with the other Scriptures which were anciently rendered into the Sy- 
riac, and is to be found only in the version of Bishop Thomas of Char- 


kel.” 
It isstated at an earlier period by Cosmas, an Egyptian scholar in the 


1 After three lines of Syriac follows the remainder of the title: ‘¢ Epistole 
quatuor, Petri secunda, Johunnis secunda et tertia, et Jude, fratris Jacobi, una, ex 
celeberr, Bibliothece Bodleiane Oxon. MS. exemplari nunc primum deprompte, et 
charactere Hebreo, versione Latina, notisque quibusdam insignite, opera, et studio 
Edwardi Pocock, Angli-Oxoniensis. Lugdun. Bat. ex officina Bonavent. et Abrah. 
Elzevir, Acad. Typogr. A. 1630.” 4to. From this edition, according to a work of 
Antony Vitre against Gabr. Sionita, these four Epistles were inserted in the 
Paris Polyglot; the differences between the two are only arbitrary alterations 
by Sionita. 

2 Pocock in Pref. ad quatuor Epist. Cath. Comp. Hassencamp’s “‘4nmerk. itber 
die letzten ὃ δ. der Einl. des Hofr. Michaelis.” p. 14, 15. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. 203 


middle of the 6th century, called Indicopleustes from his oriental travels, 
that only three Catholic Epistles are to be met with among the Syrians, 
viz. that of James, the first of Peter and the first of John! 

To revert to Dionysius Bar Salibi, he asserts that these epistles were 
found only in the version of Bishop Thomas of Charkel, meaning the 
Philoxenian, which, as we shall soon see, was revised by Thomas of Char- 
kel, who was subsequently bishop of Germanicia. Certainly, then, Bar 
Salibi knew nothing of the Epistles which since Pocock’s time have 
been introduced into editions of the Peschito, for, though they some- 
times resemble the Epistles in the Philoxenian version, they differ from 
them very much in their readings, in the choice of words and in the 
freedom of manner. 

Or if the words of Bar Salibi be supposed to mean that Thomas made 
a translation of his own of the epistles of which we are speaking, his 
declaration would be untrue in another way ; for they were not to be 
found merely in the version of Thomas of Charkel, but also in the 
Philoxenian. It is therefore every way most probable that Bar Salibi 
was not acquainted with the version of the four Epistles which is now 
printed with the editions of the Peschito. 

As we have already mentioned, the Apocalypse, too, is wanting in 
MSS. of the Peschito. At least, that which appears at the end of some 
editions of the Peschito is certainly no part of this version, as is evident 
from its internal character. The mode of translation resembles rather 
that of the four Catholic Epistles just mentioned; e. g. in the custom of 


expressing 0, 7, 70, by OO1 , Qaci, etc. which frequently happens so 


many times in a single verse as to be absurd; e. g. in Rev. 5: 5, where 
it occurs four times and is needed only once; so too in the especial care 


taken to express ἐστί and εἰσί by Aa} and «οσια»Δυ] ; also in the un- 


grammatical omission of all suffixes tonouns and verbs, which, in order 
to give the force of avros, αὐτή in Greek, are followed by the particle 


07, as happens in Rev. 2: 13, no less than five times. 


If this version be not the Philoxenian, it certainly arose from it. 
Learned men, indeed, say that it neither agrees exactly with it, nor is 
entirely different from it. I cannot surmise on what they found their 
assertion, for the Apocalypse of Philoxenus is not found in any of the 
MSS. of his version hitherto discovered. The description given of the 
MS. from which it was first published reminds us of the Philoxenian 
version. ‘““Versuum distinctiones,” it is said, ‘‘libellus iste proprie ha- 
bet nullas, et nec capitum; nisi que a lectore quodam, nescio quo, nos- 
tris numeris adscripta fuerunt. Sententiarum tamen distinctiones 
habet varias, quarum quedam longiores, aliz breviores periodos dis- 
cernere videtur, quas nos hic non gravate omisimus, tum quia typograph- 
us 115 carebat, tum quia nos certum earum usum non deprehendebamus. 
Aliquando enim tota pagina habet nullam, interdum una multas, ac non- 


1 Cosmas Indicopl. De Mund. L. VII. in Galland’s Biblioth. Patr, T. XI. p. 
535. Παρὰ Σύροις δὲ εἰ μή αἱ τρεῖς μόναι αἱ προγεγραμμέναι οὐχ εὑρίσκονται. 
Aiyw δὲ Ιακώβου, Πέτρου, καὶ ᾿Ιωάννου. 


204 SYRIAC VERSIONS, 


nunquam sine ulla sententie distinctione solius elegantie causa cumu- 
latas, priores quatuor punctis rubris, circulum mgrum ovali forma 
constantem, quadrangulari forma continentibus: posteriores quatuor 
solummodo punctis, duobus rectis rubris, aliis transversis nigris, pingun- 
tur. Alize etiam aliter insigniuntur etc.” And some pages after: “Non 
est autem dissimulandum in ipsius autographi margine errata varia a 
lectore quodam, nescio quo, sed alia manu, alio atramento emendata 
conspici: item verba quedam in autographo occurrisse redundantia aut 
bis scripta, que manifesto sensum vitiarent, que nos resecuimus.” 

The MS. was written by one Caspar of India, as he calls himself at 
the end of it.! He, however, resided in the West, it would seem, and 
was in the service of the Congregatio de propaganda fide. The Li- 
brary of the Orphan House at Halle contains a MS. Liturgy of the 
Chaldee form, in Syriac characters, to which an ancient hand has given 
the following title: “ Ordo baptizdndi jurta ritum Chaldaorum lingua 
Chaldaica. .. . descriptus per Gaspar de Malavar, Indum, . . . Ro- 
me, mense Julii, MDLXXX.”* The name and country of the copyist 
are the same in both; a comparison of the characters would be deci- 
sive. 

The present printed Syriac version of the Apocalypse formerly be- 
longed to the younger Scaliger; from him it went to the library of Ley- 
den University. From this MS. it was published by Louis de Dieu, from 
whose preface the description of it given above was extracted.2 The 
text was afterwards incorporated into the Parisian and London Polyglots, 
and has been appended to some editions of the Peschito. 


§ 65. 


The copies of the old Syriac version, therefore, did not, at least after 
the 6th century, contain the 2d Epistles of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John 
or the Epistle of James; and after a certain period, we know not pre- 
cisely when, they had likewise no Apocalypse. Yet the Greek Bibles 
contain all these and it does not appear that they were ever discarded 
from the sacred Codex, different as were the opinions respecting them. 

I cannot persuade myself that the Peschito originally wanted the 
Apocalypse, because this book is supported by witnesses in the East of 
580 weighty a character as Justin Martyr in Palestine, and Theophilus of 
Antioch, head of the principal church in Syria. The necessary conclu- 
sion therefore would be, that the Peschito was not composed till after 
the anti-allegorical controversies of Nepos, when several of the Orien- 
tal fathers had embraced the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria; i.e. 


1 Adler cites several MSS. of the New Testament written in India in JVov. 
Test. Vers. Syr. denuo examinaie. Hafnie 1789, 4to. p. 24, 25, 26. 


2 Herbert Marsh’s Notes and Additions to J. D. Michaelis’ Introd. translated 
by Rosenmiuller, (1 Th. Gotting. 1795, 4to. p. 162.) 


3 Apocalypsis Sancti Johannis, ex Manuscripto exemplari e bibliotheca clariss. 
virt Josephi Scaligeri deprompta, charactere Syro ct Ebrao, cum versione Latina et 
notis, opera et studio Ludovict de Dieu. Lugdun. Bat. ex typogr. Elzeviriana. 
1627. 4to. This ed. was reprinted at the end of Lud. de Dieu’s “Critica Sacra,” 


fol. Amstelodam. 1683. 


Pe 
SYRIAC VERSIONS. 205 


late in the 3d, or in the early part of the 4th century ; which I can still 
less induce myself to believe. ' 

Both these opinions being improbable, there remains but one other ; 
viz. that the Apocalypse gradually disappeared from the old Syriac ver- 
sion, in the 4th century. 

The proof of thisisextremely simple. Ephrem, as well in his works 
which yet exist in the original, as in those which were translated into 
Greek in the 4th and following centuries, frequently refers to the Apo- 
calypse, even mentioning its author by name.!_ Ephrem could not have 
done this, had not a Syriac version of it existed ; for he had no acquaint- 
ance with Greek. 

I know, indeed, that it has sometimes been asserted by the learned 
that Ephrem was skilled in Greek, but they have not exhibited any au- 
thority for the affirmation so unhesitatingly made. We are assured of 
precisely the contrary by ancient and trustworthy testimony. Sozo- 
men, himself an Oriental, born in Palestine, educated in Baruth in 
Phenicia, where in his time was a celebrated school, and who lived at 
no remote period from Ephrem’s day, states this; and Theodoret of 
Antioch, Bishop of Cyr in Syria, even wonders that he should have 
been able to combat so successfully the heresies of the Greeks with- 
out a knowledge of their language. Probably some of the learned men 
have confounded him with Ephrem, the patriarch of Teupolis, to 
whom Photius attributes, besides a knowledge of the Syriac, a more 
than ordinary acquaintance with the language and literature of the 
Greeks.” 

Yet a later writer, of considerable merit in regard to biblical criticism, 
even names his instructor in Greek, stating that it was Basil, Bishop of 
Cesarea. _ I cannot say on what authority he states this, as I have only 
seen extracts from his work,? The authority, however, cannot be of 
any weight, since Basil’s brother or, if not he, an ancient and respecta- 
ble writer, who composed a life of Ephrem, knew nothing of such a cir- 
cumstance. He tells us that Ephrem visited Basil—visited him at an 
age when there is little success in learning languages, and when 
Ephrem was already made famous by his works.1 Ephrem speaks " 
himself of this visit, says that the Bishop addressed him through an in- 
terpreter, and communicates the subject of their conversation.° 

He must certainly therefore have learned Greek late in life, speedily 
and miraculously, in some such way as is represented in a life of Basil 
attributed to Amphilochius. Basil, (the biographer informs us,) during a 


1 Opp. Syr. T. II, p. 332. Opp. Grae. T. II. p. 53. and p. 194. 


3 Sozom. H. E.L. IIL. C. 16. Περὶ “Ελληνικῆς παιδείας ἄμοιρος. Theodoret. 
H, E. L. IV. C. 29. παιδείας γὰρ οὗ γεγευμένος “Ἑλληνικῆς, cols τε πολυσχεδεῖς 
τῶν “Ελλήνων διέληγξε πλάνους x. τ. ἢ. 

3 Photius Cod. 228. 


4 Spohn “De ratione textus biblici in Ephremi Syri commentariis obvii, ejus- 
pon a Leips. 1786, 4to, Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Litter. 1. B. 
. ot. p. . 


hg Gregorii Nysseni de vita Ephram Syri etc. Opp. Tom. III. p. 605. edit. 
ucei. 

6 Cotelerii Monum. Eccles. Grec. T. III. p. 58. Basilii vita in Opp. Basil. T. 
ΠῚ. Garnerii ὃ XXIX. n. 4. Ephrem. Encom. Basilii T. ΠῚ. Opp. Ed. Vossii. Co- 
lon. 1603, fol. p. 712. 


206 _ SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


three days visit which the Syrian fa father paid him, obtained of God 2 
his prayers, that his guest should be able to speak Greek, which he in- 
stantly did to his own astonishment.! If we reject the miracle we have 
but a Trifolium Grecum remaining ; but even this is ill attested, for 
criticism has long since pronounced - its just sentence on this biography. 

Now if he had not learned, and did not understand Greek, there 
‘must have been a Syriac version of the Apocalypse which he read. The 

same is true in regard to the Epistle of James, the ad of Peter and 2d 
~ of John? 

The learned men of Gottingen object on the other Mid that Ephrem 
quotes Greek words in his Commentaries. But they are only single 
words in very few passages, respecting which he might easily, if he 
wished to know how the Septuagint read, have inquired of his brother 
monks. I do not give the reply on mere conjecture ; his Syrian biogra- 
pher furnishes it for me. Ephrem, he says, when he travelled to Egypt, 
took with him one of his pupils as a Greek interpreter.? In this pas- 
sage we have, first, another evidence that he was unacquainted with 
Greek, and secondly, an explanation how he obtained the single words 
which occur in his Commentaries. I must be pardoned, then, if I 
steadily persist in maintaining that Ephrem read in some version the 
disputed Epistles and the Apocalypse, which he frequently quote 


8 66. ἢ 


But while we are striving to restore some parts of the old Syriac ver- 
sion-which have in later days been severed from it, a celebrated man 
attempts to deprive it of a possession, which till his time no one disputed ; 
viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews.* 

In this Epistle, he says, when Paul refers to the Old Testament, the 
passages are quoted according to the Peschito; and hence he concludes 
it must have been translated later than other books of the New Testa- 
ment in which this is not the case. For it is certainly to be supposed that 
the Christians translated the New Testament first, and then the Old, into 

y! jac. _ But this celebrated writer should not have relied upon suppo- 
sition, ‘when fact was at hand. The case is the same in the Gospels, the 
Agta an d Epistles; not invariably indeed, but, as it would seem, only 

atthe passages in the Syriac Old Testament were before the trans- 
lator or were readily found. The citation in Matt. 19: 4,5, is exactly 
transcribed from the Syriac version of Gen. 2: 2, 4; and Matt. 91: δ, 
is taken from the Syriac of Zechariah 9: 9, except the words which do 
not occur in the Evangelist, although the Syriac does not express Mat- 
thew’s τοῦ ὑποζυγίου. Sometimes the Old Testament is quoted with 
such alterations as are necessary to make it like the words of the New. 
Thus in Matt. 12: 18, the beginning of the passage does not strictly ad- 


1 Gerard. Voss. T. I. Opp. Ephremi, p. XIII. 


2 These Epistles are cited by Ephrem in the following places: Ep. Jude. T. 
I. Opp. Syr. p. 136. Opp. Gree. T. 111. p. 62,63. Secund Pet. T. 11. Opp. Syr. 
p- 342. Opp. Gr. T. 11. p. 987. Secund. Joann. T. I. Opp. Gr. p. 76. T. III. p. 
52. 


3 Vita S. Ephrem ὃ 15. p. 39. Asseman. Biblioth. Orien. T. I. 
4 Michaelis’ Introduction. 1 Th. § 53. p. 363 seq. 4th Edition. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. 207 


here to the Syriac of Isaiah 42: 5; ‘but the two verses from οὐδὲ xoav- 
γάσει to τυφόμενον οὐ σβέσει are entirely from Isaiah. So Matt. 13: 
14, the words from ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε to τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου are taken un- 
changed from Isaiah 6: 9; while the rest is more closely assimilated to 
Matthew’s phraseology. 

The long passage, Acts 4: 25—29, is taken entirely from the 2d 
Psalm in the Peschito; and so likewise Acts 8: 32, 33, from Isaiah — 
53: 7, exactly according to the Syriac version of that prophet, except 
one word which does not occur in Luke. Rom. 9: 29, is taken from 
Isaiah 1: 9, and Rom. 11: 9,10, from Psalm 59: 24, 25, although there 
is not an exact agreement with the words of Paul. 

It may be true, as this learned man says, that we cannot but suppose 
the Christians would translate the New Testament before the Old; but 
what if the Jews translated the latter? ‘They may have had a Syriac 
Targum as others had a Chaldee one. The facts before us require 
such a supposition, and two other besides are explained by it. The 
first of these is that the Syriac Old Testament is translated from the 
Hebrew; the second that it is often changed to conformity with the 
LXX. The Jews didthe former, and the Christians, who had for some 
time been accustomed to the Alexandrian version, the latter. 

Thus the principal objection against this Epistle, and one to which 
Michaelis attributes very great importance, falls to the ground of itself. 
“Tn all other parts of the version of the New Testament the high priest 


0 ρ y v 
is always called lam eS), but in the Epistle to the Hebrews 729 


wa 
13809; and this is a proof that the latter was translated by a different 


hand.” A somewhat important deduction from a single word! 
Paul, in order to prove the high priesthood of Christ, appeals to Ps. 
110: 4, and the translator took the cited passage from the Syriac Psalter, 


where the expression : sos Bs san oa Aa}; is used. Now with 
such premises as he had (Heb. 5: 6). he could not in his conclusion 
use the expression lans , but must have inferred that he was μύας. 


He could not say: It is series he is Summus sacerdos, and then infer 
that he was Summus pontifex. "ΤῸ justify such a conclusion the identi- 
ty of the two expressions must first be shown, so as to connect the prem- 
ises and conclusion; and the translator by such a change of words 
would have deprived the argument of its validity. In chapter 7: 17, 
this argument occurs a second time, and is so interwoven throughout 
with the contents of the Epistle, by means of positions deduced from or 
referring to it, that the translator, however accustomed to the word 


Jans , was obliged to renounce it, and confine himself in this Epistle 


to the expression which the biblical quotation adduced in proof made ne- 
cessary. 

We cannot from the fact that a translator does not every where em- 
ploy the same word, or express the same idea, in the same manner, in- 
fer immediately a different method of translation and a different trans- 


ὝΙ 


ν᾿ 


208 + re’ SYBIAC VERSIONS. ῃ ἢ 


£ -" ᾽ γον 4 , " 
lator, as has been done by a foreign scholar." Because the | xtremely 
‘simple expression in Rom. 1: 17, ὁ δίκαιος ἔκ πίστεως ξησέταυς- 
Fis. Si cee ee 4 F ᾿ 
3 | Zaasaso1 τὸ bale», is rendered differently in Gal. 3: 11, 
I ee Oe γ' t 
fous \ZassosnD 10591) , may we therefore attribute the translation 


max 
j 
A 


of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians to different authors ? 


. 6 same expressions often have, or seem to the translator to have, 
different meanings. This is the case in Heb. 10: 29, in regard to the 


͵ Τ . . . "Η ae’, 
ΓΗ word κοινός. The signification polluted, expressed by s2amso must 
ς 4 2h 


ὥς ὁ.» , oy 
᾿ certainly have appeared harsh to the translator, and lag , which is 


used for it elsewhere in the Peschito, signifies something mon, 
_ which is not the meaning here, (see Tit. 1: 4, Acts 4: 32.) ie it was 
clear that he must adopt a peculiar expression for a who peculiar 
sense, as he does: who counted the blood of the covenant as ᾿ς ἌΝ hu- 


Ὁ a» 
man blood, -#1.>2). . 


To maintain the fact of different translators from the use of different 
expressions, will require a more extensive induction than one of three 
or four words. Let us profit by the honest admission with which the 
German opponent of this Epistle himself prefaces his objections, an 
admission not merely relating to a few words, but to the mode of proce- 
dure, the judgment, taste, and ability of the translator: ‘‘'True,” says 
Michaelis, ‘it (the version of this Epistle) exhibits much similarity to 
the Peschito, an equally pure and easy Syriac style, equal freedom from 
slavish literalism, and is about as accurate.” Thus far Michaelis—and 
now it may be well further to call to mind the circumstance that 
Ephrem possessed a version, and, as we see, notwithstanding his free 
citation of some passages, had it in his biblical Codex and made use of 
it in his Syriac works. 
ya? a ΣΝ 


eras § 67. 


Notwithstanding, it has seemed to me that the Peschito of the New 
Testament was not made throughout by a single hand. The manner 
of the translator has appeared to me more free in the Acts and Epistles 
than in the Gospels; and even in diction I have thought I observed 
some difference. But I have not noted down my observations so care- 
fully as to be able to found a solid and forcible argument upon them. 

The Greek text which was the basis of the Peschito possessed the 
following peculiar characteristics. It contained many readings which 
occur only in the writings of the fathers of the Church before the 3d 
century: Some of its peculiarities may perhaps be found in copies of 
the old Latin version before Jerome’s time, and several of them in the 
celebrated MS., so remarkable for its license, preserved at Cambridge. © 
It does not, however, adhere steadfastly to any text, but agrees some- 


1 Herb. Marsh’s Notes and Additions to Michaelis’ Introd. Germ. Trans. I. 
Th. p. 136, 137. 


A 


a , 7 209 


ne SYRIAC VERSIONS. — 2 


times with this and sometimes with that; and often takes its own course 
entirely unaccompanied. Yet it has not so considerable variations from 
the greater number of MSS. as the copies in the possesses ‘Clement 
of Alexandria seem to have had, or those of the Latins before Jerome ; 
and, although it frequently harmonizes with the Cambridge MS., its sin- | 
cularities are by no means so great and numerous as those of. phedats 
ter. 
We therefore perceive plainly that the text follows no fixed sta 
and that the Codex’ from which the translator made his version 
belong to any one of the families of MSS.; that it resembled some- 
times one and sometimes another, but in reality was entirely indepen- 
dent. r is ey) 
Fron ese well founded observations it appears that at the time wl 


this version was undertaken, neither Syria nor Palestine were in pos- — 
n Ρ 


session of those Recensions which produced harmony in their bibli- 
cal MSS. and established a fixed text. It must therefore have been 
compose at least as early as during the first half of the 3d century, if 
indeed its purity, which elevates it above the text of this period, may 
not claim for it still higher antiquity. 


- § 68. 

So far we have been guided by critical characteristics in our investi- 
gation of this document with reference to the time at which it origina- 
ted. We will now see what information on this subject we can derive 
from other facts. 

The works of Ephrem the Syrian, in which the version is que 
prove that it had been introduced into use in the churches in the 
half of the 4th century. Before his time Jacob of Nisibis, wh 
called Ephrem’s preceptor, flourished as a Syriac writer ante must have © 
found a Syriac Bible necessary in his exhortations to the people. In 


the 3d century Archelaus, Bishop of Carchara, Caschara, or ( arhe, 


(for the Greek writers sometimes spell it one way, sometimes meinen} 
published a refutation of Manes in Syriac, which was translated into 
Greek as early as sometime in the following century.” These are clear 
indications of a Syriac literature, the com mencement of which was still 
earlier. τὴ 


All these appearances meet our view not in the Roman portion of — 


Syria, or within the limits recommended by Augustus to be set to the 
empire, but upon the Euphrates, at Edessa, Nisibis, Charrhe, in north- 
ern Mesopotamia, where the petty. kings of Osroene and Edessa main- 
tained themselves, sometimes under the protection of the Parthians, 4 
sometimes under that ofthe Romans. Here the language of the ὁ 

try was first cultivated after the fall of the. Seleucide and prodded 
valuable fruits of native literature. bs ph 


Ἡ 


1 Storr, “ Obiverpattunes super N. T. versionibu 
ἰδῶ Ρ. 10—14. oe 
2 Hieronym. de Script. Eccles. V. Archelaus. “ Archelaus episcopus, Mesopo- 
tamie librum disputationis sue quam habuit adversus Manicheum, exeuntem 
de Perside, Syro sermone composuit, qui translatus in Greecum habetur a multis. 
Claruit sub imperatore Probo, etc.” 


27 


οϑγήκοις Stuttgardie, 1772. “5 


ane ' 
a A 


210 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


Here Bardesanes, in the 2d century, employed the language of the 
country in various departments of learning. He published a book De 
fato, the existing fragments of which evince more than ordinary know- 
ledge.' He wrote likewise treatises on Marcion’s system, as also essays 
and writings against other heretics in great numbers, which were trans- 
lated by his friends into Greek.? Jerome, who had seen them, exclaims 
respecting them, in his lively way: “If such brightness beams even im 

_ the translation, what must it be in the original!” 

Harmonius, his son, although he had been instructed in Greek htera- 
ture at Athens, rivalled the reputation of his father as a writer in the. 
language of his own country. He was the favorite poet of the Syrians ; 
and it was to supplant his not very pious or orthodox songs, which how- 
ever were received with impassioned delight, that Ephrem at a later 
period published some sacred hymns which he had composed to the airs 
of Harmonius.* δὴν 

We are forced to believe that, at ἃ time when the native literature of 
the country had reached such a point of advancement as it had among 
the Mesopotamian Christians in the days of Bardesanes and Harmonius, 
a version of the Bible, if it were not already in existence, could not at 
any rate be delayed much longer ; and if works were already translated 
from the Syriac for the use of the Greeks, as they were by the friends 
of Bardesanes, they must naturally have been preceded by translations 
from the Greek and Syriac which roused and animated the national 
literature. At a time, too, when controversial and polemic treatises written 
in the language of the country, like those of Bardesanes against Mar- 
cion and other heretics, were received with applause and read with 
interest, the nation must certainly have possessed the Bible in its own 
language, in order to take an interest in, or even to understand, the 
controversy and the arguments. 

We must therefore have good grounds for supposing peculiar impedi- 
ments which stood in the way of a version of the New Testament, in 
order to believe that there was not one made in Mesopotamia, at least 
as early as about the close of the second century. 'TYosuch aconclusion 
we are also led by the observations which we made not long ago upon 
the character of the text which is the basis of the Peschito. These 
point us with certainty to the commencement of the third century, and 
indeed would warrant a step further, into the second century, if we 
should find occasion for it. ; 


« 1 Euseb. de Prep. Evang. L. VI.c. 10. 


3 Euseb. Η. E. L. IV. ce. 28. Βαρδησάνης ἑἱακανώτατός τις ἀνὴρ; ἕν τῇ τῶν 
Σύρων φωνῇ διαλεκτικώτατος, πρός τοὺς κατὰ Μαρκίωνα καί twas ἑτέρους διαφό-- 
oe mo ᾿ ΄ ~ > , 
ρων προϊσταμένους δογμάτων, sears συστησάμενος τῇ οἰκείᾳ παραδέδωκε γλώτ- 
τε καὶ γραφῇ μετὰ καὶ πλείστων αὐτοῦ συγγι ΐ ὃς καὶ οἱ γνώριμοι 
τῇ τε καὶ γραφῇ μετὰ καὶ πλείστων αὐτοῦ συγγραμμάτων, ait, καὶ αἰ γνώριμοι 
πλεῖστοι δὲ ἦσαν αὐτῶ δυνατῶς τῶ λόγῳ παριοταμένω, ἐπὶ τὴν “Ελλήνων ἀπὸ τῇς 
, ~ τω > π᾿ © Α 
“Σύρων μεταβεβλήκασι φωνῆς. ᾿Εν οἷς ἐστε καὶ 0 πρὸς ᾿ Avrwvivoy ἱκανώτατος αὑτου 
- la x ‘ ~ Lond 
περὶ εἰμαρμένης διάλογος. “Ὅσα τε ἄλλα φασὶν αὐτὸν προφάσει τοῦ τότε διωγμοῦ 
συγγράψαι x. τ. λ. Comp. Theodoret. Heret. Fab. L. I. ο. 22. 
3 De Script. Eccles. V. Bardesanes. 


4 Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. L. [V. c. 29. Heret. Fab. L. I. ¢. 22. Sozomen. H. 
E. L. III. c. 16. Assemani Biblioth. Orient. T. I. p. 48. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. Q11 


The language of a writer in the last half of the second century, who 
speaks of Syriac Gospels, here deserves attention. We mean Hege- 
sippus, respecting whose works Eusebius makes the following observa- 
tion: ‘““He quotes from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the 
Syriac, particularly also frem the Hebrew,” thus giving us to understand 
that he was aconvert from Judaism: ἐκ τὲ τοῦ x00’ “EBoalous evay- 
γελίου καὶ τοὺ Συριακοὺ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τὴς ᾿δβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινα ti- 
ϑησι. 

From the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Syriac? Does ἢ6 mean to 
connect these together as one work, or to separate them as two different 

-works? He might have connected them ; for the Gospel of the He- 
brews, which was probably written in the Galilean dialect, might prop- 
erly be called a Syriac Gospel. But then he would have used another 
, form of expression ; he would have said: ἐκ τοῦ Svocaxov xd “Πβ- 
gaious εὐαγγελίου, or τοῦ καϑ' “EBouiovs εὐαγγελίου, tov Svocaxor, 
from the Gospel of the Hebrews in Syriac. 

In the present case: the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Syriac-—the 
and distinguishes two things, a Gospel of the Hebrews—and—a Syriac 
i. e.—Gospel. If the Syriac were merely an epithet of the first, the and 
could not have been placed between them, but Syriac, according to both 
Greek and Latin construction, must have been placed before or im- 

mediately after: in Syriaco Evangelio secundum Hebracos—or in 
Evangelio secundum Hebracos, Syriaco—in the Syriac Gospel of the He- 
brews—in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Syriac—in the version of 
Ulfilas, the Gothic—in the Gothic version of Ulfilas. But if I say: 
in the version of Ulfilas and the Gothic, I express myself as if 
speaking of two things which are to be distinguished. In short, 
grammar does not connect a single adjective with its noun by and. It 
is only when several adjectives are used together that a second or third 
is connected in this way with the first. 

If therefore the expression of Eusebius may be judged by the rules 
of grammar, and particularly that of the language in which he writes, 
he speaks of a Gospel of the Hebrew and of a Syriac Gospel, which last 
must have been only a translation. 


§ 69. ae 

So much respecting the name, source, materials, and condition of the 
text of this version, as also respecting its antiquity. We have now to 
enumerate the editions of it which have appeared. 

When in 1552, Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch, sent Moses of Mer- 
din as a deputy to Rome to Julius 3d, to represent there his religious 
tenets, he at the same time enjoined it upon him to cause the Syriac 
New Testament to be printed in Europe. His endeavor to perform this 
injunction proving unavailing at Rome-and Venice, Moses applied to. 
Albert Widmanstad, the Austrian Chancellor under Ferdinand I. 
Widmanstad had long applied himself to the Syriac language, and his 
earnest intervention prevailed upon the king to defray the expenses of 
the work? He with Moses, corrected the text from two MSS. and 


1 Euseb. Η. E. L. IV. ο. 22. 


2 See Assemani Bibl. Or. T. 1. p. 535. Comp. also Andree Mullert Greiffenhagii 
Opuscula. Nr. VIII. and IX. 


213 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


directed the printing of this beautiful and scarce volume, which, besides 
a Syriac title of six lines in Estrangelo, has also the following in Lat- 
in: ‘Liber Sacrosancti Evangelii de Jesu Christo Domino et Deo nostro. 
Reliqua hoc codice comprehensa pagina proximaindicabit. Div. Ferdi- 
nandi Rom. Imperatoris designati jussu et liberalitate, characteribus et 
lingua Syra, Jesu Christo vernacula, divino ipsius ore consecrata, et a 
Joh. Evangelista Hebraica dicta, scriptorio prelo diligenter expressa.”” 
Here follows a Syriac line and then under it: “Principium Sapientie 
timor Domini.” 

The Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and the Catholic, have their peculiar 
title ; and the pages of each of these three divisions are numbered sepa- 
rately. In the Epistles of Paul the numbers are in Roman characters. 
The dedications are all dated MDLV; and we see from the statement 
made after the letter to Gienger and Jacob Jonas on the last page but one, 
that the work was really completed in that year: “In urbe Vienna am- 
plissimarum orientalis Austria provinciarum metropoli florentissima, ad 
hunc excitum perductum est divinum hoc opus, Anno a Christi nativitate 
M.D. LV. XXVII. Septembris. Regiis impensis. Caspar Craphtus 
Elvangensis, Suevus characteres Syros ex norici ferri acie sculpebat.— 
Michael Cymbermannus prelo et operis suis excudebat.” 

In this edition, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of 
John, that of Jade, and the Apocalypse are wanting ; also the story of. 
the adulteress and the passage, 1 John. 5: 7. Adler has remarked that 
it was based upon Nestorian MSS.? : ', 

2. The second edition was the following : “4 καινὴ διαϑήκη, Testa- 
mentum Novum, 83 Np n1. Est autem interpretatio Syriaca N. 
T. Hebrais typis descripta, plerisque ctiam locis emendata. Eadem 
Latine sermone reddita. Auctore Immanuele Tremelio Theol. doctore εἰ 
professore in schola Heidelbergensi, cujus etiam grammatica Chaldaica 
et Syra calci dperis adjecta est. Excudebat  Henr. Stephanus Anne 
MDLXIX. This book contains the Greek text with Beza’s transla- 
tions and the Syriac in Hebrew characters, with a new Latin version. 
The basis of it is Widmanstad’s edition, which Tremelius amended in 
some places from a Heidelberg MS. Hirt has described its external 
characteristics ;> and Bruns has examined the amendments which Tre- 


1 There is a full and accurate description of this book in Hirt’s Oriental. und ex- 
egetischer Bibliothek, If. Th p. 260. seq. 1V Th. p.317. V Th. p. 25. In my copy the 
Acts come immediately after the Gospels; and the dedication No. 5. 4d Div. Ferdi- 

‘nandum, which is promised in the table of contents is wanting. The dedication: 
Ad D. Maximilianum, is found prefixed to the Epistles of Paul; but I miss again 
the dedication of the Cath. Epistles : 4d D. Carolum Austriact nominis secundum. 
The arms of the printer from whose press the work issued, upon the reverse of 
the title page, together with the words beneath: cum Rom. Cas. Maj. gratia et 
privilegio cautum est, ut nemo deinceps hoc opus imprimat. Vienne Austri@ excu- 
debat Michael Zymmermann Anno M.D. L. XU. are not in mine and not in many 
other copies, and were first added, it would seem, by the printer when the Royal 
Chamber delivered him the remaining copies for sale. Hirt’s Orient. Bibliothek, 
IT. Th. p. 287. IV. Th. p. 339. 

2 Nov Test. Vers. Syr. denuo examinate, p. 39. 40. 

3 Hirt’s Orient. Biblioth. II. Th. p. 289. As the dedication to queen Elizabeth 
is subscribed at “Heidelberg 1568,” some have supposed that there was an earlier 

. edition at Heidelberg of this date ; as if the dedication must not have been writ- 
ten before it could be printed. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. 219 


melius made in the text and the hasty alterations with which he is 
chargeable, in Matt. 10: 8, 27: 35, Luke 22: 17, 15, and Acts 
25: 24.1 

3. The third edition was that printed twice in the 5th vol. of the 
Antwerp Polyglot, once in Syriac and once in Hebrew characters.— 
The Latin version was made by Guy Le Fevre De la Boderie. In this 
edition a MS. was used which Postel brought from the East, according to 
the Preface to the Latin version of De la Boderie. This MS. was 
probably Codex Coloniensis® the various readings of which were collect- 
ed by Rapheleng and subjoined to the two following editions. 

4. This was a Syriac New Testament in Hebrew characters, without 
any title-page, in octavo. It is sometimes found bound up with the 
Hebrew Bible issued from the Plantinian press in 1573-74. At the end 
there are “‘Variae lectiones ex N. T. Syriaci MScr Codice Coloniensi 
nuper a Fr, Rapheleng collecte.” Instead of a title-page, immediately 
over the Gospel of Matthew are the words: &N3T ΝΡ 

δ. NNT NPN Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum 
Syriace. Antwerpia ex officina Christophori Plantini, Architypographi 
regii MDLXXV, in 16 mo. in Hebrew characters. ‘“‘ Vari lectiones 
ex N. T. Syrici (sic) manuscripto codice Coloniensi, nuper a I'v. Raph. 
collectae,” are subjoined as an appendix. Both the Plantin editions 
appear to be only a reprint from the Antwerp Polyglott. 

6. Novum Testamentum, NIT NPN, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, Novum 
Jesu Christi D. N. Testamentum ad Christianissimum Gallia ct Po- 
loniae regem Henricum IIT. Potentiss. et Invictiss. Princtpem Chris- 
tiane religionis vindicem et assertorem unicun. Parisiis MDLXXXHI. 
apud Joannem Benenatum. 4to. According to Richard Simon the text 
of De la Boderie is given in this edition, and it belongs among the re- 
prints of the Antwerp Polyglot, unless that learned man made some cor- 
rections in the text. 

7. Elias Hutter’s text in his Opus duodecim linguarum, 1599, is use- 
less to the critic. 

8. Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriace cum ver- 
sione Latina, ex diversis editionibus diligentissime recensitum. Accesse- 
runt in fine notationes variantis lectionis ex quinque impressis editionibus 
diligenter collecte a Martino Trostio 1621. Cothenis Anhaltinorum, Ato. 
Some copies have the year 1622. Mine has the peculiarity of having 
been ended a year sooner than it was begun ; for the subscription at 
the end is: “ Finitum Cothenis Anhaltinorum X XVI. Septembris An- 
no Christi MDCXAXT, while the year 1622 is on the title page. The 
book is wellexecuted; the Syriac type is excellent; the editions made 
use of, as named in the list of various readings, were Edit. Viennens. 
Tremell. Guido (Fabric. de la Boderie,) i. e. the text of the Antwerp 
rhe Parisiense exemplar ann. 1584, N. T. Syriac. Plantini, in 

vo. 

9. The Syriac text in the 9th and 10th volumes of the Paris Poly- 
glot was taken from the Antwerp Polyglot, as Vitré asserts in Le Long; 
but Gabriel Sionita undertook some alterations in it, it is not known 


1 Bruns in Repertor. fur bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, XV. Th. p. 153, seq. 
2 Herbert Marsh's Notes and Additions to Michaelis’ Introd. p. 142, Vol. 1. 


- 


214 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


whether from MSS. or conjecture. The Apocalypse, 2d Peter, 2d and 
3d of John, and the Epistle of Jude appear with the Peschito for the 
first time, according to the editions of Louis de Dieu and Edward 
Pocock. 
10. The London Polyglot promises an improved text ; for the Pro- 
legomena say: “‘ non cx propriis conjecturis, sed secundum exemplaria 
MSS. The story of the adulteress is taken from a MS. of the Philox- - 
enian version belonging to Usher; the Apocalypse is reprinted from 
De Dieu; the four Catholic Epistles which are wanting in the Peschito 
are taken from Pocock. ' 

11. Nat NPT, Novum Testament. Syriace, Sulzbaci, ex offic. Joh. 
Holst. 1684, 12mo., by Christian Knorre of Rosenroth, is, according to 
Schaaf, a reprint of the Plantin edition in 8vo. or 16mo. 

12. ASgid Gutbier, in his edition of the Syriac New Testament, has 
far surpassed some of his predecessors in industry and ability, and all of 
them in point of utility. It appeared first in Syriac type at Hamburg 
in 1664. In 1667 there was added a small Lexicon, with various read- 
ings from the Paris and London Polyglots. The basis of his edition 
was the Trostian ; yet he made use of a MS. himself, which he frequent- 
ly mentions in the Appendiz Lexict Syriact exhibens variantes puncta- 
tiones etc.” No man will refuse to rely on his honesty when he speaks 
in the preface of having used even two MSS. The mistakes he has 
made in respect to the story of the adulteress and 1 John 5: 7, etc., have 
been noticed by Bruns.! 

13. Schaaf, for the most part, followed him in his editions of 1709 
and 1717. ‘‘ Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum 
cum versione Latina cura et studio Johannis Leusden et Caroli Schaaf 
editum, ad omnes editiones diligenter recensitum ; et variis lectionibus, 
magno labore collectis, adornatum. Secunda editio a mendis purgata, 
Lugduni Bat. typ. Jo. Mulleri, Joh. fil. apud vid. et fil. Cornel. Boutes- 
teyn, Sanuelem Luchtmans. 1717,” Ato. 

14. Biblia sacra quadrilinguia N. T. Greci, cum versione Syriaca, 
Greca vulgari, Latina et Germanica accurante M. Christ. Reineccio. 
Lips. 1713. fol. This follows Schaaf’s text. 

To this are to be added two editions intended for distribution in the 
East, one of which is unknown among us and the other made its ap- 
pearance but a short time since. 

15. Nov. Test. Syriac. et Arabic., Tom imus. Jaso,o Lodo 


whdilo Lrjaw frado [lp 2007. This is in Estrangelo : 
on the following page there 15 ἃ fuller title : “ Sacro-sancta Jesu Christi 


Evangelia jussu congregationis de propaganda fide ad usum ecclesia 
nationis Maronitarum edita.” 


Ἰδοῦ ]daaj80 ealoom;D αἱολυυΖ]» Lasjo {doa 30] 1x23] 


12,5) TS ya! [Zest Ζοῖο;υ WS; Δαν» ἴδωϑὉ 


1 In the Repert. fir bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, XV. Th. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS. 215 


Warraeaso waZ] Arad 220,50) “ Rome typis. congregat. de 
propag. f. 1703.” fol. 

The second Vol. Novum Testament. Syr. et Arab. Tomus IIdus. 
Then follow the same words as in the first, in Estrangelo. The fuller 
title on the next page is: “Acta apostolorum epistule Catholice et divi 
Pauli jussu sacr. congr. de prop. fide ad usum ecclesia nationis Maroni- 


tarum edita cum Apocalypst D. Joannis.”  eMam5;2? too 


soll λα, 10} an Qs) Gras «-20 excadsaav0 


the rest as in the first Vol. “ Rome typis sacr. congr. de prop. fide. A. 
1703.” fol. 

The book is in two columns, one of which contains the Peschito, the 
other the Arabic version in Syriac characters, or the (so called) Car- 
shuni text. It is therefore a Diglotton. The Peschito (we shall speak 
of the Carshuni text in its proper place,) is derived “‘ ex codice Biblioth- 
ece collegit Maronitarum de urbe, quem patriarcha Antiochia ejusdem 
nationis—cum permultis aliis ecclesiasticarum rerum voluminibus trans- 
miserat” etc. It was edited by Faustus Naironus Banensis Maronita, 
who gives an account in the Preface of the undertaking and its execu- 
tion. 

The Catholic Epistles, as is usual in Syriac MSS., come immediately 
after the Acts, and are seven in number, of which the 2d of Peter, the 
2d and 3dof John, and that of Jude, agree, except in a few readings, 
with the text of Pocock. The Apocalypse is the same as that given by 
De Dieu from Scaliger’s MS. 

The verses Luke 22: 17, 18, are marked with an asterisk at the be- 
ginning and end ; and the story of the adulteress is admitted, marked in 
the same way. The verse Acts 28: 29, does not appear; neither does 
1 John 5: 7. The passage Acts 20: 28, is read, as in the early Syriac 
editions generally, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Χριστοῦ. The reading of 
1 Cor. 5: 8, which is found in Nestorian MSS., and another in Heb. 2:9, 
ὅπως χωρὶς ϑεοῦ, do not occur here. Other Jess important readings of 
particular MSS. are likewise sometimes met with in this edition. The 
copies of it were sent to Asia. In the Propaganda there were shown 
me a few copies considerably injured, from which however I could form 
a complete one. 

16. The edition of the English Bible-Society, particularly designed 
for the East, has received a Latin title likewise, out of complaisance, as 
it would seem, to the Europeans to whom it might be presented. ovum 
Testam. denuo recognitum atque ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum emen- 
datum, Londini impensis Societatis ob Biblia Sacra. 1816. 4to. Our 
University-Library possesses it as a present from the Bible-Society. 

We readily perceive that this edition is not a mere reprint, but was 
executed with the aid of MS. documents. In Matt. 28: 39, ἵνα πλη- 
ρωϑη---κλῆρον is thrown into the margin at the bottom with the note in 
Syriac: “‘ This addition is found in some Greek copies;” Luke 22: 17, 
18, is included in brackets; John 7: 58, and 8: 12, bear the inscription 
in Syriac, as in the English Polyglot: “‘'This clause does not occur in 


;” 
216 οἱ" SYRIAC VERSIONS. ‘ % 4 
the Peschito.’ ots 15. 3 ie in Acts 8: 37, ΚΑ, τ ΒΝ _ Xia 
τον, and in’A ' of τῷ the. ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ, are put in the 
lower margin, as also, 18: 6, τὸς αἵμα ὑμῶν ἐπί τὴν κεφαλῆν, with the 
remark : “These words are found in Greek MSS.” So likewise Acts 
28: 29, is noted in the lower margin. The celebrated passage 1 John 
5: 7, is wanting. 'There is a small note pasted at the end of the book 
which informs us that: “ Brevi prodibunt codicum MSS. collationes, 
ad quorum fidem emendata c et .”’ JT do not know whether or 
when these appeared. Probak yriac MSS. which Dr. Buchanan 
brought with him from the East Indies and presented to the Cambridge 
University," were the basis of f the text. Among them are some Nes- 
torian MSS., as may be inferred from 1 Cor. 5: '8. In the lower mar- 


gin is the readings };-{\22 , with the addition: “ This ts found in 


some copies.” Adler found it in MSS. which according to the inscrip- 
tion were Nestorian (WVov. Test. Version. Syr. L. I. p. 36), and the 
Nestorians are accustomed to use leavened bread in the administration 
of the Lord’s supper. (Asseman. Bibl. Or. T. 11. P. I. Dissert. de 
Syris Nestorianis, § XII.) Another reading of Heb. 2: 9, χωρὶς 
ϑεοῦ, which is regarded as Nestorian, the editor does not seem to have 
met with in his MS. Besides the Nestorian, Jacobite MSS. were like- 
wise used. There isan evidence of this in Acts 20:28, where all the 
MSS. of the Peschito hitherto known read, Church of the Messiah ; but 


the editor ie in his text (oLN}) OZ, , with the note in the mar- 


gin beneath : “in other copies of the Messiah i is tee here.” The reading 
adopted was, according to Sabariesu’s testimony, the usual one in the 
MSS. of the Jacobites “(Assem. Bib. Or. T. TIT. in Append. ad catalog. 

Ebed Jesu. C. XX XLX) ; and is found also in the Philoxenian version. 
It has in fact some correspondence with the monophysite union of the 
two natures, in such ἃ manner that the divine merged in the human ‘as 
in the ocean; on which account God performed human actions, slept, 

wept, and redeemed his people with his blood. 

The existing editions, therefore, are derived from the MSS. of three 
different churches, the Nestorians, Kutychians and Maronites. Each 
of these gave the preference to this or that reading ; but neither pos- 
sessed a peculiar Recension of the text. We draw this conclusion in 
regard to the Eutychians, because if there had been any remarkable pe- 
culiarities in the monophysite text, the Bible-Society edition would at 
least have presented them in the lower margin. 

We have been lately reminded anew with what caution we are to 
make use of this version, for purposes of criticism. . Some of the ad- 
monitions are general and hold in regard to every version; such as that 
we must pay regard to the construction of the language, and the pecu- 
liar manner of the translator. Every version, obeying the laws of con- 
struction peculiar toits own language, deviates in little points from the 
Greek, without making it necessary to suppose a peculiar reading at 
bottom ; every version has certain habits which can be learned only by 


ἘΞ 


1 Latest Researches into the present “condition of Christianity in India, by 
ΟΝ C. Buchanan, translated by Chr. Gottl. Blumhardt. Stuttgard. 1813. p. 139 


ul 
a 


a , i PHILOXENIAN VERSION. Q17 
y 


= 
long acquaintance. Among the peculiarities of the Peschito are these, 
e. g. it always subjoins ἡμῶν to κύριος ; 2d, instead of αὐτός, αὐτοῦ, the 
proper name to which it refers is usually repeated; 3d, it omits small parts 
of speech such as εἶτα, τότε, ἰδοῦ, and ver s which are superfluous, as 
λέγων, ἀποκρεϑείς; 4th, πᾶς is often arbitrarily inserted and omitted ; 
and Sth, adverbs of comparison, such as ὡς, ὁμοίως, are often omit- 
ted. 


Mie 4 
PHILOXENIAN VERSION. 


§ 70. 


The MSS. of this version contain a postscript at the end of the Gos- 
pels, which informs us respecting the time at which it was composed 
and some other historical circumstances relative to it. The postscripts 
in all the MSS., so far as they have been carefully examined, agree, and 
only contain in the different MSS. a clause or two more or less. So 
far they agree ; literally: This MS. of the four Evangelists was first 
translated from the Greek into the Syriac, with great pains, at Mabug, 
tn the year of Alexander 819, in the days of the holy confessor Philoz- 
enus, Bishop of that place. It was afterwards collated with great care 
by poor Thomas, with two (some MSS. read three) very excellent 
and correct copies, in the Antonia at Alexandria, the great city, in the 
holy monastery of the Antonians. It was written and collated the second 
time, at the place mentioned, in the year 927 of Alexander, in the fourth 
Indiction.” 

The version was made, then, in the days of Philoxenus, in 508 of the 
Christian era. This Philoxenus, or Xenaias, was bishop of Mabug, 
Manbej, Mangeb or Hierapolis in Syria, from 488 to 518.3. The au- 
thor of the version is not named in the above inscription; but another 
Syriac writer has preserved it. According to him, it was Polycarp, a 
Chorepiscopus of Philoxenus. He undertook the work and dedicated 
it to Philoxenus, who incited him to it, and from whom the version re- 
ceived its name.’ It was made from the Greek, and comprehended the 
whole New ‘Testament. 


§ 71. 


Philoxenus, also called Xenaias, was a favorite of Peter Gnaphey, 
who got himself into the patriarchate of Antioch, and contrived to main- 


1 Geo. Benedict. Winer. Comment. de Vers. ΟΝ. T. Syr. usu critico caute insti- 
tuendo. (‘The Christmas Programm.) Erlang. 1823. 4to. 

2 Versvo Syriaca Philoxen. Ed. Jos. White, at the end of John and in the crit- 
ical notes, p. 641. Adler, N. T. versiones Syrice—denuo examinate. Hafnie 
1789, 4to. L. IT. p. 45,48. Repertor. fur bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, VII Th. 
p. 234 seq. VIII Th. p. 89, 90. Storr Observationes super verstonibus No. Test. 
Syriac. Pars. II. ὃ 19. p. 45. 

3 Assemani Biblioth. Orient. T. IT. p. 10-46. 

4 Moses Agheleus apud Asseman. Bib. Or. T. II. p. 83. Adler, loc. cit. 48. 

28 


218 PHILOXENIAN VERSION. 

_tain himself in this elevated station by means of the connexions he had, 
and the creatures he gathered around him. Among the latter was 
Philoxenus, whom he consecrated Bishop of Mabug, and used as a tool. 
The patriarch was attached to the doctrines of Eutyches, and, as he 
seemed to entertain a mitigated view of the Monophysite doctrine, a 
great part of Syria fell in with his opinions. He imdeed found oppo- 
nents, for no such change takes place, in general, without much disturb- 
ance; but the court of Constantinople seemed to favor him and his te- 
nets so much, that when the Emperor Zeno promulged a scheme of un- 
ion, or Henotikon, the Monophysites received it with approbation, and 
the patriarch with Philoxenus and his party, and Peter Mongus, patri- 
arch of Alexandria, subscribed it. From this time they constituted a 
peculiar sect by themselves, attached to the new doctrines.!_ Hence, it 
would seem, they came to a resolution to execute a church-version of 
their own, which I suppose they made from Origen’s copies, in order to 
invest its text with as high authority as possible. 


§ 72. 


One hundred and eight years afterwards, viz. in the year 927 of the 
Greeks, or 616 according to our reckoning, poor Thomas, as the postscript 
to the Gospels says, revised this Monophysite document and collated it 
with two, or as some copies say three, ancient MSS. in the monastery 
of the Antonians at Alexandria. 

The Acts and Catholic Epistles he collated, as the subscription to 
them informs us, with one Greek MS. The Pauline Epistles, however, 
he appears to have collated with two; for two are cited in the margin. 
E. g. at Philip. 3: 20, Ephes. 2: 16, Rom. 8: 27. 

Several copies of this version, in the subscriptions added by the copy- 
ists, term this poor Thomas, Thomas of Charkel; e.g. the Parisian 
Codex: “ Thus ends, by God’s help, the holy book of the preaching of 
the adorable Christ, our God, according to the four Evangelists, from 
the Charkelian emendation, etc.” and under the table of Chapters in 
Matthew: “ The chapters of Matthew, seventy in number, according 
to the correction and amendment of Thomas of Charkel, are finish- 
64." Other MSS. have several other subscriptions of this nature.” 

There has not been, however, so much perplexity as to the person of 
Thomas, as in regard to another circumstance respecting his labors. 
He says, in the postscript to the Gospels: “Τὶ was afterwards with great 
pains collated by me, poor Thomas. . . . . for the second time it was 
written and collated in the place mentioned, etc.” From these words 
some infer two collations of it, the first by Thomas, and the second by 
some unknown individual in the year of Alexander 927. 

Yet it is nothing unusual to collate a MS. twice, nor was it with the 
ancients. ‘Thomas may have done this. The collation of 927 is evi- 
dently the work of Thomas of Charkel. So we are told by Bar-He- 
breus in his Chronicon Syriacum. At the same time (says he,ad Ann. 
927 of the Seleucidan era) lived Thomas of Charkel, a monk of the 


1 Asseman. Bib. Or. T. II. p. 10-46. Evagrius H. E. L. III. 6. 31. 52. 
2 Versio Syr. Philox. Prefat. J. White, Sect. IV. Adler Vers. N. T. Syr. denuo 
examinate, ἵν. IT. p. 56,58, 59, 63, 66, &c. 


PHILOXENIAN VERSION. 219 


monastery of Tarill, who in his youth applied himself to Greek litera- _ 
ture in the monastery of Kenserin, and was subsequently Bishop of 
Mabug. When he was deprived of his station by Domitian, Bishop of 
Melito, he went to Egypt and lived in the Antonia at Alexandria, in the 
holy monastery of the Antonians, where with great industry he amend- 
ed the four Gospels and the other books of the New Testament, by a 
careful and accurate revision of the version which had been made be- 
fore him at Mabug by Philoxenus.” So far Bar-Hebrzus.! 

Thomas was, therefore, a contemporary of Paul of Tela, who in the 
same place composed a Syriac version of the Old Testament from the 
Hexaplar text of Origen. From this circumstance, I can explain to 
my satisfaction the undertaking of Thomas of Charkel, which at first 
view appears rather singular. 


§ 73. 


Thomas saw that the Hexaplar text, from which Paul made his ver- 
sion, was accompanied throughout in the margin with the readings of 
Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. ‘The New Testament version of 
his sect, it seemed to him, needed something of this kind and the li- 
brary of the Antonians offered him MSS. which were distinguished 
above others for ancient and remarkable readings. ‘These materials he 
thought he could employ in a similar way ; for the advantage which had 
been derived in the Old Testament from the MSS. of Aquila and others, 
was offered him in respect to the New by the MSS. of the Antonians, 
which contained as many and far more important various readings, with 
which he could store his margin. The text of the old Syriac version 
supplied the place of the Hebrew text in the Old Testament. And, as 
in the Old Testament exegetical notes were scattered here and there in 
the margin, he wished to present some likewise ; and whatever learning 
of this nature it was in his power to add, he did. A 

The readings which he presents in the margin occur in the MSS. 
B.C, and they are generally such as are handed down to us in D. from 
the time of the corrupted text; as likewise in the Sahidic version and 
the Latin versions antecedent to Jerome. In the Acts in particular we 
are presented with considerable deviations and corruptions in the text, 
which often agree with D and E, but are sometimes more extravagant 
than either. (Comp. Acts 13: 33. 14: 4,5. 14: 10. 15: 1. 16: 17. etc.) 


§ 74. 


Now had he been content with merely noting in the margin the 
peculiarities which he found in his ancient MSS., his labors would merit 
our hearty thanks; but he was not so cautious and unpretending. He 
was desirous of playing the critic himself, and sometimes introduced his 
readings into the text, making use of obelisks and asterisks, according 
to the example of the Hexaplar which his companion had translated in- 
to Syriac. Thus he withdrew in many places the original reading of 


1 Asseman. Bib. Or. P. WH. p. 334. Eichhorn in the Repert. fir bibl. und morgenl. 
Litteratur, Vil. Th. p. 234. seq. Bruns inthe same Rep. VIII. Th. p. 89, 90. 
Probably the passage is from the 2d vol., yet unprinted, which contains the his- 
tory of the Patriarchs of Antioch. 


220 PHILOXENIAN VERSION. 
7 -» 


, 


the Philoxenian version, whose text was probably of more value than all 
the critical additions with which he intended to, adorn it., 

Yet we must not think that he was the first to introduce obelisks and 
asterisks into the Philoxenian version; they existed in it earlier, and in- 
deed originally. Chance has preserved a MS. of this version, which 
has neither Thomas’ subscription, nor the various readings in the 
margin which he collated from ancient copies, nor the notes which he 
added from his own learning. This Codex (Mediceo-Florentin. Plut. 
I.n. XL.) is consequently a copy of a MS. of the time antecedent to the 
labors of Thomas ;! and is of no ordinary value in enabling us to distin- 
guish from Polycarp’s version the interpolations inttoduced by him. 

Now as this Codex, likewise, is furnished with obelisks and asterisks, 
it is clear that their use was as early as the time of Polycarp, the author 
of the version. He either added them himself, with a view to correct 
certain passages in the text by them, or he selected for his version a text 
which was already in repute and estimation for its accuracy.. In the 
latter case we must suppose him to have used the text of Origen, who 
made use of the usual Alexandrian signs, obelisks, and asterisks, in per- 
forming his critical labors. Should we discover a family of MSS. which 
exhibited this text, we should then be sure that Polycarp did not form 
his own text, but selected an existing Recension and executed his ver- 
sion according to it. Our conclusion as to whether Origen’s text was 
used or not would then be almost undoubting. 


§ 75. 


Thomas, as we have said, did not content himself with presenting his 
readings and observations in the margin, but had an unfortunate incli- 
nation to undertake critical amendments of the text. This is shown in 
Mark 11: 10, where, after TATOOS ἡμῶν “αβίδ, he inserted εἰρήνη καὲ 
δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, and says in the margin: ‘‘ This is not found in all the 
Greek MSS., nor indeed in the text of Mar Xenaias, but it is in some 
which we regard as very good copies.” The passage was thus undeni- 
ably not in the Philoxenian text, and was first introduced by our critic. 
His interpolations are manifest from the readings; for they are such 
as occur only in MSS. of the corrupted Alexandrian text, as were 
the MSS. of the Antonians. E. g. in Luke 19: 45, after ἀγοράξοντας 
there is inserted with an asterisk, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν 
ἐξέχεεν, καὶ τὰς καϑέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστερᾶς, which ap- 
pears only in D of all the Greek MSS. In the margin he informs us: 

‘The words do not occur in all the Greek MSS.” Who can help, see- 
ing that the words which he inserts with an asterisk, after ov τρόπον 
κακεῖνου, in Acts 15: 11, were derived from an unregulated text, partic- 
ularly as we find this addition in Codex ἢ. ‘The words are: συγκατα- 
τεϑεμένων δὲ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τοῖς ὑπὸ τοὺ Πέτρου εὑρημένοις, 
ἐσίγησεν. 

Other amendments (as he thought them) he took from the Peschito. 
In Matt. 25: 1, D and the Peschito, after τοῦ νυμφίου, add καὶ τῆς νυμ- 
φης. Inthe Philoxenian text the addition appears with an asterisk and 


1 Adler, Vers. ΟΝ. T. Syr. denuo examinate L. 11. p. 52-55. 


PHILOXENIAN VERSION. . 221 


with the marginal note: ‘‘ This zs not found in all the MSS. ; ὁ. g. not 
in the Alecandrian.”! He could therefore have borrowed it only from 
the Peschito. The reading τὸ πῦρ αὐτῶν in Mark 9: 48, has been 
found in no MS. as yet; the Peschito alone has αὐτῶν. Whence but 
from this, then, can it have come? After διώκεις in Acts 9: 5, he in- 
serts with an asterisk the words: σκληρὸν oot πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν; 
in the margin he says: “ These words do not occur in the Greek here, but 
only where Paul narrates the incident himself.” ‘Though they are not 
found in the Greek, they are found literally in the Peschito, which is 
therefore the source of the addition. 

In order to distinguish what belongs to each, and to restore the ori- 
ginal text of Polycarp, we must especially consult and collate the Medi- 
cean Codex before mentioned. 


§ 76. 


Yet the corruption caused by Thomas in particular passages is not 
so extensive, as to prevent us from forming a general idea of Polycarp’s 
text. In the first place, as it respects the Gospels, we observe that in the 
important readings which we have pointed out (§ 38) as peculiar to 
the text of Lucian compared with the Egyptian MSS., (Matt. 6: 13, 20: 
22, Mark 6: 11, 8: 14, Luke 4: 18, 10: 22, John 1: 27, 5: 16. 6: 22, and 
69,) they agree ‘erfectly with Lucian, But in the less important read- 
ings they often deviate from Lucian’s text and approximate to the Egyp- 
tian, particularly when the MSS. AKM, 42,114, 116, and Matth. 10,coin- 
cide with the Egyptian MSS. Yet, even in peculiarities in which the 
MSS. AKM ete. stand entirely alone, the text of Polycarp is often on 
their side ; of which fact we have already (§ 39) given examples. 

In Acts 20: 28, occurs one of the most remarkable readings which 
distinguish Lucian’ 8 and the Egyptian MSS. ΤῊΘ former read τὴν éx- 
; κλησίαν κυρίου καὶ ϑεοῦ, but the Egyptian MSS. AC, 40, Vat. 367, 
DE, Copt., ‘and Sahid., κυρίου only. ΒΒ, however, differs from these, 
and reads 9200, in which it is accompanied by some MSS. ~ This third 
reading is the one which Polycarp has in his text. Every where else 
he constantly adheres, sometimes to the Egyptian, and sometimes to, Lu- 
cian’s side. We will present an example of this in Acts X. The let- 
ter p denotes the agreement of Polycarp, or if it be preferred, of the 
Philoxenian text, with the readings to which it is prefixed. 


p- 2. ποιῶν ékenu... apc. 40.8. Copt. Sah. ποιῶν te ἔλεημ. . . 
p. 5. ἄνδρας εἰς ᾿Ιόππην az. 1.x. Copt. Sah. εἰς Ἰόππην ἄνδρας 
Σίμωνά τινα Ρ. Σέμωνα τόν 
ὃς ἐπικαλεῖται ΑΒ. 1, Copt. ἐπικαλούμενον 
7. λαλῶν αὐτῷ ΑΒ6. |. 40, 367. Ρ. λαλῶν τῷ Κορνηλίῳ 
οἰκετῶν asc. 40. Ρ. οἰκετῶν αὑτοῦ 
10. αὐτῶν ἐγένετο axe, 1. 40. Copt. p. ἐκείνων ἐπέπεσεν 
p. 11. καταβαῖνον asc. ]. 40. Ε. Sah. καταβαῖνον ἐπ αὑτόν 


1 According to one reading “the Alexandrian” is in the plural ; according to 
another, in the singular. 


222 


11. ἀρχαῖς καϑιέμενον 


12. τετράποδα καὶ ἕρ-- 
πετὰ τῆς γῆς 
. 14, καὶ ἀκάϑαρτον 
16. καὶ εὐθύς 
23. ἐπαύριον ἀναστάς ᾿ 
without 6 τῆν 
: τῇ δὲ ἐ ἐπαύρ. 
26. 7 ἤγειρεν αὐτόν 
90. 7 ἤμην καί 
τὴν ἐννάτην 
33. ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου 
34. στόμα αὐτοῦ 
36. τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλε 
. 47. δύναται κωλῖσαι 
. 48. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι 
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
βαπτισϑῆναι 


SP Pv x 
[2] 
=. 


Sp pt 


ABc. 40. E. 


AB. |. Sah. 


age. 40. £, Copt. 
AB. 40. p. Copt. 


asc. 40. |. pe. Copt. Sah. 
agc. 40. 1. pe.Copt. Sah. 


aBc. Copt. 
ΑΒο. 40. |. p. 


agc. 40. Copt. 

asc. E. Copt. Sah. 
Copt. Sah. 

40. 1. Copt. Sah. 


ABC. 
ABC. 


PHILOXENIAN VERSION. 


. asc. 1. 40. Copt. Sah, ; 


Ρ. ἀρχαῖς δεδεμένον καὶ 


Ty 
καϑιέμενον 


p- τετράποδα τῆς γῆς καὶ 


τὰ ϑηρία καὶ τὰ ἑρπετά 


ἢ ἀκάϑαρτον. 


Ρ. καὶ πάλιν 


Ρ. 0 Πέτρος 


καὶ τῇ ἐπαύρ. 
αὐτὸν ἤγειρε 


Ρ. ἤμην νηστεύων καὶ 
Ρ. τὴν ἐννάτην ὥραν 


p- 


as, 40. 1. Copt. Sah. ; 


ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ 

στόμα 

τὸν λόγον ὃ ὃν ἀπέστειλε 
κωλῦσαι δύναται 


βαπτισϑῆναι ἔν τῷ 
ὀνόματι κυρίου. 


It appears to me that Polycarp did not adhere so much to Egyptian 
readings in the Pauline Epistles, as in the Catholic, and in the Acts. 
For an exemplification of this I select Galat. Chap. III. and IV. 


oar) 


1. Baoxave. . . οἷς 


προεγρ. 
ρωμένος 
. ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος 


. ἐσταυ- ᾿ 


p. 19. ποιήσας αὐτά 


13. ots γέγραπται 
17. ϑεοῦ ὃ 
p- τετρουκόσια καὶ 
τριάκοντα ἕτη 


6. καρδ.... ἡμῶν 
7. διὰ ϑεοῦ 
8. φύσει μή 
14. πειρασμὸν ὑμών 
15. ποῦ οὖν 
Ῥ. 25. δουλεύει γάρ 


26. μήτηρ ἡμῶν 


CHAPTER III. 


ΑΒΟ, 17. Copt. 


age. 17. Copt. 


asc. 17. Copt. 
age. 17. Copt. 


ΑΒ 17: 
asc. 17. Copt. 


ABC. 


CHAPTER IV. 


A C. 


Copt. 


Copt. 
ΑΒ. 17. Copt. 
ΑΒο. 17. Copt. 
ΑΒ. 17. Copt. 
ΑΒΟ. 17. Copt. 
age, 17. Copt. 
BC. Copt. 


ce 


Ρ. ἐβάσκανε τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ 
μὴ πείϑεσϑαι, οἷς 


Pp. προεγρ. . . ἐν ὑμῖν 
ἐσταυρωμένος 
ἐπικατάρατος 


ΞΘ τ ἜΘ 


Ρ. 


. x000.. 
. ϑεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ 
. μὴ φύσει 

‘ πειρασμόν μου 

. τίς οὖν 


4 2 mr 
ποιήσας αὑτὰ ἀνϑρω- 
πος 


γέγραπται yao 


. ϑεοῦ εἰς Χριστὸν, ὃ 


ἔτη τετρακύσια Har 
v 
τριάκοντα 


. ὑμῶν 


δουλεύει δὲ 
μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν 


From the Cath. Ep. we select 1 John, Chap. II. 


PHILOXENIAN VERSION. 223 


4, ὅτι ἔγνωχα ‘as, Copt. p- ἔγνωκα 
6. αὐτὸς περιπατεῖν ΑΒ. P. αὐτὸς οὕτω περιπατεῖν 
p 7. ἀγαπητοὶ asc. Copt. ἀδελφοί 
Ρ. ὃν ἠκούσατε ΑΒο. 17. Copt. ὃν ἠκούσατε an ἀρχῆς 
10. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ A c. Copt. Pp. ἐν αὑτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν 
p- 13. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν mad... asc. Copt. γράφω ὑμῖν mod. . 
15. τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ A c. Copt. p. τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αυτῷ 
Ρ. 23. ὃ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ 
τὸν πατέρα ἔχει ΑΒο. Copt. Ἂ 
Ρ. 94. ὑμεῖς ὃ abc. Copt. ὑμεῖς οὖν ὃ 
27. μένει ἐν ὑμῖν agc, Copt. p. ἐν ὑμῖν μένει 
29, ὅτι καὶ πᾶς. A C. Ρ. ὅτι πᾶς. 


The most perfect copy of this version now known, viz. that of Glou- 
cester Ridley, now in the Library of New College, Oxford, does not con- 
tain the Apocalypse. Yet, in my apprehension, we have no reason to 
complain of the loss, as De Dieu has already published it, with the 
omission, it is true, of the critical signs. () 64) These signs which the 
MS. contains, the ‘mode of translation so exactly like Polycarp’s, the 
nature of the text which neither adheres to Lucian nor Hesychius, but 
vibrates from one to the other, are so many evidences of the truth of 
our supposition. 

Of the Gospels, it is true, we have Greek MSS. to which the Philox- 
enian version inclines ; but. it is not so in respect’ to the Acts and the 
Epistles. But it may be said, that had Polycarp selected Origen’s text 
for translation, it could hardly have been otherwise than that some MSS. 
of the Acts and Epistles, likewise, according to this Recension, should 
agree with him; the text of Polycarp in these portions of the New Tes- 
tament would not have been so entirely unique. ‘The objection which 
I have here stated against myself, is not unimportant; but its weight is 
considerably diminished, if we reflect that not so many MSS. by far of 
the Acts and Epistles have been collated as of the Gospels; and, ev- 
en of those, the greater part only cursorily and carefully. We need 
much more information to enable us to pronounce definitely and confi- 
dently in regard to this and other critical questions. 


§ 77. 


The version itself everywhere evinces the most careful and laborious 
endeavor to lose not a syllable of the original text and to express all the 
minuti@, even in violation of the laws of the Syriac language. The ar- 
ticle 0, 77, τὸ, is always carefully rendered, as well as ἐστί and εἰσί, lit- 
tle as ‘either practice accords with pure Syriac phraseology. Αὐτός, 
αὐτή, does not appear as an affix according to Syriac custom, but is treat- 


ed as a separate word, by means of the syllable \\s? , to which it is at- 


tached.. Words compounded with πρό, σύν, ἐπί, κατα, which are known 
in none of the Shemitish dialects, are represented in a very artificial 


manner; as 6. g. πρόϑεσις, Ἰζομο Zasaam , ἐπιγραφή, yorass) {oh>, 
in Mark 2: 26, 12: 16. These improprieties, however, which are una- 


29448 PALESTINO-SYRIAC VERSION. 


voidable when a language is so abused, are of uncommon advantage to 
criticism, as the version seldom leaves us in doubt as to whai 
original, as other versions do whose authors have exercis 
dom. 


§ 78. ¥ 


The four Gospels of this version have been printed in England with 
the following title: ‘‘Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philoz- 
eniana, ex codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Biblioth. Coll. Novi Oxoniensis 
repositis, nunc primum editu, interpretatione et annotationibus Josephi 
White, A. M. Coll. Wadh. Socii et ling. Arab. Prof. Laudian. Oxonit 
e typograph. Clarendoniana.” 1778. 4to. This volume is divided into 
two parts: Jom. IT. begins with the Gospel of John. The second vol- 
ume bears the title: ““ Actuum Apostolorum et Epistolarum tam Cath- 
olicarum quam Paulinarum, versio Syriaca Philoxeniana ex Codice 
MS. Ridleiano in Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. reposito nune primum edita: 
cum interpretatione et adnotationibus Josephi White. S. T. P. ling. 
Arab. apud Oxonienses Prof. Tom. 1. Acta Apostolorum et Epistolas 
Catholicas complectens. Oxonii e Typogr. Clarendon. 1799.” 'The se- 
cond part with the same title comprehends the Epistles of Paul. ‘‘ Tom. 
II. Epistolas Paulinas complectens. Oxon. etc. 1803. Various learn- 
ed men have written accounts and descriptions of the MSS. of this ver- 
sion now in existence ; and likewise monographs and essays on the con- 
dition of the text and its readings.!. Among them Adler’s work which 
we have frequently cited: “Nov. Test. versiones Syriace ete.” is of 
peculiar value. He had White’s edition before him and compared it 
with MSS., thus obtaining the materials and occasion for much valuable 
critical remark. 


PALESTINO-SYRIAC VERSION. 


ὃ 79. 


Weas yet know of but one MS. of this version; and that contains 
only lessons from the four Gospels for all the Sundays and festivals of 
the year. It is in the Vatican Library, N. XTX among the Syriac MSS. 
J. a C. Adler obtained it thence and undertook an investigation of 
it. 

The character and language in which it is written differ somewhat 


1 Gloucester Ridley, De Syriac. N. T. versionum indole atque usu. Londini 
1761. Adler, N. T. vers. Syriac, Simplex, Philoxeniana, Hierosolymitana—denuo 
examinate. Hafnie, 1789. 4to. Paulus, Accuratior manuscriptorum, quibus 
versio N. T. Philoxeniana continetur, catalogus, cum quibusdam ad viros eru- 
ditos questionibus. Helmstadii 1788.—Gottlob. Christ. Storr, Observationes 
super N. T. -versionibus Syriacis. Stuttgardie 1772. 8vo. Storr, in the Repertor. 
far bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, X. Th. 


2 Nov. Testam. versiones Syriac. Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana 
denuo examinate. L. III. p. 137. seq. 


a ae 


PALASTINO-SYRIAC VERSION. 225 
from the common Syriac. It has many Chaldee idioms, and very much 
resemble pthiddialect in its grammatical peculiarities ; e. g. in suffixes of 
the third person to nouns in the plural number, in the status empha- 
ticus of nouns, and in the form of the third person masculine of the fu- 
ture tense. 

ΤΕ ΗΝ distinguishes three Syriac dialects—the Syro-Aramaic, 
which is the most elegant, spoken by the inhabitantsof Roha and Haran 
and external Syria; the Palestinian spoken at Damascus, on the Libanus 
and in the interior of Syria; and lastly the Chaldeo-Nabathzan, the rough- 
est of all, common in the Assyrian mountains and the villages of Irak: 

The manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic observable in our ver- 
sion appears to denote that it is Chaldeo-Nabathaean. The Peschi- 
to was probably composed in the region of Edessa, Roha, Haran, 
etc., and was there, we know, the church-version. Abulpharagius 
informs us that it was used especially in eastern Syria.2 From the 
country where it originated, it appears to have been written in the first 
and most elegant dialect. The Philoxenian version prevailed in the vi- 
cinity of Antioch, and exhibits to us the language of this part of Syria. 
We have left, therefore, for our version only Damascus and Palestine, or 
the Syrian mountains and the province of Irak. 

To determine our choice between the two, we must not overlook an 
observation made by the learned man to whom we are principally. indebt- 
ed for our knowledge of this version ; viz. that many idioms occur in it 
which are found only in the Philoxenian version besides. Now as the 
idioms of both approximate to each other, the countries of their respect- 
ive origin must likewise. 

The part of Syria in which our version originated was evidently a 
Roman province, or a part of one. I infer this from some words which 
struck my eye in the specimen (Matt. 27: 3—82,) which Dr. Adler has 
presented us. The soldiers, in v. 27, are called simply Lasoo} , Romans ; 
as if no soldiers but Romans were known in the country. In the same 
verse σπεῖρα is rendered by the Roman word };\m0, castrum; from 
which we may readily infer to whom the dominion of the country be- 
longed. The Assyrian mountains never had a Roman Pretor, and were 
not broughtin formam provincia, as was the case with western Syria and 
Palestine. We must therefore certainly regard this as a Palestinian 
version, rather than one which originated in the Assyrian mountains. 
Michaelis, and others after him, even call it the Hierosolymitan version. 

The MS. itself was written in the vicinity of Palestine at Antioch ; 
where the monks of Palestine, it is very possible, had a monastery. It 
was written, says the subscription: “‘in the monastery of Abbot Moses, 
in the city of Antioch, in the vicinity of the Holy Land.” Probably 


~©2.0)/ asa should be om.0,2.] Lassi, 


§ 80. 


The version was made from the Greek, as is evident from the Greek 
orthography of proper names (e.g. Jnoous, Τωαννῆς, Καΐαφας, ]αξεῖρος, 


1 Hist. Dynast. Dyn. I. p. 16,17. 2 Dynast. VI. p. 100. 
' 29 


926 PERSIAN VERSION. 


" Avvas, Meooia), and from the many Greek expressions which are re- 
tained in the very places which they occupy in the original: τραπεζίται 
Matt. 25: 27, ἀντίδικος Matt. 5: 25, βουλευτής Mark 15: 43, τῶν κερ- 
ἅμων Luke 5: 19, καὶ γάρ John 5: 23, μᾶλλον---ἣν yao John 3: 19, 
etc. 

We cannot determine what was the character of the Gheek text 
which the translator had before him, or with what class of MSS. it co- 
incided, as we have no continuous collation of it. As yet only two or 
three rare readings have been extracted from each chapter and intro- 
duced to public notice. We are acquainted, therefore, with the pecu- 
liarities in which it differs fromthe MSS. of every Recension, without 
knowing to what MSS. it is in general allied. 

Its text however appears sometimes to be compounded from various 
MSS.; e. g. in Matt. 14: 24, where for ἤδη μέσον τῆς ϑαλάσσης some 
MSS. "and the Peschito read, σταδίους “πολλούς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. ἄπειχξε, it 
unites both readings: o7a0. ᾽πολλ. ἀπὸ γῆς ἄπειχε μέσον τῆς ϑαλασ- 
σης. Soin John 19: 16, 17,instead οἵ παρέλαβον δὲ τὸν /..., the pas- 
sage is compounded as follows, of different readings in different MSS. : 
ἀγάγοντες δὲ τὸν or ἐπέϑηκαν αὐτῶ τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
βαστάζων ἔἐξηλθεν. 


PERSIAN VERSION. 


§ 81. 


The Persian version which appeared in the London Polyglot extends 
only through the Gospels. The language is interspersed with so ma- 
ny Arabic expressions that we cannot ‘fail to recognise the influence 
which the religion of Mohammed had upon the language of the nation, 
and consequently refer it to a period later than his time. 

The parts of Persia bordering on the north of Mesopotamia made 
use, it would seem, of the Syriac ritual and church-version ; just as our 
ritual and version are in Latin. In the 5th and 6th centuries, Edessa 
was much resorted to by the Persians for the purpose of obtaining instruc- 
tion in the genuine Nestorian tenets at the celebrated school in that 
place.! Now when these portions of Persia came to desire a version in 
their own language, they had recourse to the Syriac copies, and transla- 
ted from them. Thus arose the Persian version which we at present have 
and which was probably composed at Edessa. 


§ 82. 


Its source is the Peschito, as is proved by many readings which are 
now to be found only in it and the Peschito; e. g. Mark 6: 41, , ἐμέρισαν 
πᾶσι; δῖ, ἐθαύμαζον καὶ ἐξίσταντο; 7: 2, κοιναῖς and τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν are 
wanting ; 20, ὁ δέ for ἔλεγε δέ; 31, εἰς τὰ ὅρια for ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρί- 


1 Theodor. Lector., ἐκλογαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ δευτέρου βιβλίου. Αβδοιπαη. Biblioth. Or. 
JT. ΤΠ. ς. 2. p. 744. 


PERSIAN VERSION. 227 


ov; 34, ὁ ἔστε διανόιχϑητε is wanting ; 8: 25, καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν 
ἀναβλέψαι is wanting ; 9:26, καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον κράξαν ; 29, ἐν νηστείᾳ 
καὶ προσευχῇ ; 10: 19, μὴ κλέψης, μὴ φονεύσῃς; 40, “ἵμαιος υἱὸς 
“ιμαίου; 52, ἠκολούϑει ἐν τῇ 000. We. find so many examples in 
these few chapters that it is unnecessary to illustrate the matter further. 

This is shown also by many mistakes of the translator which clearly 
sprang from the Syriac. Mark 6:9, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια is 


translated 3 tae Cu Ip Urry , they should hold shoes 
in detestation, which arose from mistaking the word Lo , fo put on 
shoes, for 12-00 , to hate, ia aaios taj. In Mark 7: 11, δῶρόν 
wou ὁ ἐὼν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληϑῆς, is given in the Peschito το ἘΣΎ 
> 2\z eats0?; the first word the Persian translator “mistook for 
©a3JQD0;£ and rendered approach to me. Mark 7: 34, He looked up 
to heaven and sighed, er.a2djo : the derivation of this word from 


. patt misled the translator and he rendered, He looked up to heaven 


and rested. He makes the same mistake in Mark 8: 12, where he 
translates and he rested in his spirit. In Mark 9:3, ov δύναται dev- 


κᾷναυ-τ-- Ordon according to the Peschito, he has used one of the 
two significations of j;2., ἐο see, in Aphel to make white, for the other ; 
and renders they could not bear the sight. The word Pascdexos, in John 
4:49, which the Syriac renders by tossa 95, he even took for a 
proper name, and translated thus: Abdolmelik said to him. 


§ 83. 


This version would be of uncommon value in the criticism of the 
Peschito, had it been preserved without being corrupted, but it is dis- 
figured by many glosses. WH. g.in Mark 7: 15, after the words, those 
are they which defilea man, is added, which is a mortal sin ; in Mark 
7: 26, where the Greek woman of Syrophenicia is spoken of, the words 
for she was from Hems, are inserted. Similar additions and explana- 
tions are met with in almost every chapter. We find, moreover, words 
and even sentences twice translated ; 6. g. Mark 6: 49, where the word 


φάντασμα is rendered once by ἕ af a deception, and immediately af- 
terwards by a> a phantom. Mark 8: 14, they had only one loaf 
with them in the ship, the Peschito translates, only one cake ; in this it 
was followed by the Persian translator, who says first, one cake, Abe: 9, 
but translates the word again by ἰοαΐ, wd, not a cake, and no loaf 
had they with them in the ship. (Comp. Mark 6: 7. 31. 43.) 


228 PERSIAN VERSION. 


Frequently, one of these readings exhibits the Syriac and the other - 
the Greek text, as is the case in the last example; and yet we have no 
reason to suppose that there was so much knowledge of the Greek lan- 
guage,and so many Greek MSS., in existence in Persia, as to have en- 
abled readers to illustrate and amend their text from the Greek. It is 
more probable that there existed a Persian version from the Greek, which 
was made use of by readers and copyists, and from which these inter- 
polations sprang. Indeed, this extensive empire must have had sever- 
al versions to supply the wants of different provinces in which different 
dialects were prevalent. If we are not influenced by the advantage 
which biblical literature would derive from a careful examination of 
this version, at least the striking and certain similarity of the Persian to 
our own mother-tongue, the German, should induce us to devote espe- 
cial pains to the former, for the purpose of inferring from it the original 
ebaciricil of the latter, the roots and former significations of its words, 
and in order to throw light upon historical facts respecting the origin 
and migrations of nations. 


§ 84. 


Besides the version in the Polyglot, there is still another which has 
been published by Wheelock, but is little known among us. It is said 
to have two title-pages, on the first of which is: “ Quatuor Evangelia 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi Persice, ad numerum situmque verborum 
Latine data 1652,” and on the second: “‘Quatuor Evangeliorum Dom- 
int nostri Jesu Christi versio Persica, Syriacam et Arabicam suavis- 
sime redolens ; ad verba et mentem Greci textus fideliter et venuste con- 
cinnata. Londini. 1657.” 

The editors may indeed have had a MS. containing a version from 
the Greek, but they employed the Syro-Persian text in making out their 
own, thus making lamentable confusion. For they used the MS. of 
Pocock’s from which the text in the English Polyglot was printed, as 
Pierson himself confesses in the preface to Wheelock’s Gospels: “Cum 
Evangeliis Persicis edendis D. Abraham Whelocus operam navdsset, 
tres sibt MSS. Codices impetraverat, Oxoniensem, Cantabrigiensem, 
et alterum Pocokianum; quorum uno descripto, ceteris collatis, fu- 
storem in omnes commentarium destinaverat.”' Had they presented us in 
a state of purity the version made ad verba et mentem Greci textus, we 
would readily have dispensed with the Syriac and Arabic fragrance 
which they boast upon the title-page. 

Lastly, Nadir Shah is said to have caused a Persian version to be com- 
posed from Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Armenian and Hebrew MSS., which 
was published at Ispahan in 1740-41. It can be of little importance to 
New Testament criticism. 


1 Herbert Marsh's Notes and additions to Michaelis Introd. Vol. I. Germ. Ed. 
p- 210-11. 


ay 


ARMENIAN VERSION. 929 


ARMENIAN VERSION, 


§ 85. 


Our knowledge respecting this version is derived from two sources. 
The first is an Armenian biography of the saints, in the former Royal 
Library at Paris, from which the Bishop of Erivan, by request, trans- 
lated the life of Mesrob into Latin. Richard Simon made use of this. 
The other is the Armenian History of Moses Chorenensis, which Whis- 
ton’s sons published, with the title: ““Mosis Chorenensis Historia 
Armeniace Libri IIT. Armeniace ediderunt, Latine verterunt, notisque . 
tllustrarunt Guilielmus et Georgius Guil. Whistoni filii, Aule Clarensis 
in Academia Cantabrigiensi aliquamdiu alumni. Londini 1736.” Διο. 
Michaelis drew from this fine document. ‘The two authorities do not 
differ in the main. ἢ 


ᾧ 86. 


The version was contemporary with the national alphabet. ‘The in- 
vention of this has immortalized among his countrymen the memory of 
Mesrob, of Hasekos, in the province of Taran. Till his time they em- 
ployed the Syriac alphabet, and it would seem that they made use of the 
Syriac Bible and liturgy in their religious worship. The want of ana- 
tional character occupied much of his attention; and after many unsuc- 
cessful attempts of his own, it was revealed to him, it is said, in a heay- 
enly vision. 

He hastened to communicate his new alphabet to king Uram Scavu, 
and Isaac, the patriarch of the country, who caused schools to be estab- 
lished in Armenia, in which reading and writing were taught. Mesrob 
himself travelled into Iberia for this purpose. 

On his return he found the patriarch employed in translating from 
the Syriac. There were no Greek MSS. to be had, as Meruzan, a 
Persian viceroy, had caused all Greek books to be burned ; and the Per- 
sians in general permitted no other Janguage or character to be used 
among the Armenians (in the church-service probably,) but the Syriac.” 

When the Ephesian Synod assembled in 431, two pupils of Mesrob, 
Joseph and Eznak, were deputed to it, who brought back with them an 
account of the proceedings of this council, and a carefully written copy of 
the Bible. 

Isaac and Mesrob now threw aside what they had translated from 
the Syriac, and commenced a version from the newly acquired Greek 
copy; but they did not possess the requisite knowledge of Greek.* 


ee τὺ: τ 


1 Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. Ch. 17. p. 203-205. 

2 Moses Choren. Hist. Arm. L. II. 6.54. R. Simon, H. Crit. des versions du 
N. T. 17. Chap. 

3 Mos. Chor. L. III. 6.61. The pupils of Mesrob are here called Johannes Ec- 


clensis and Josie, an envis: 
ν Ἂς 


230 " ARMENIAN VERSION. 


This however did not dishearten them. Joseph and Eznak were des- 
patched to Alexandria to perfect themselves in Greek, and the work 
was entered upon for the third time, Moses Chorenensis, the historian, » 
himself assisting.! 

According to Bar Hebrzus, Isaac and Mesrob, after the translation 
from the Greek text was completed, altered it to ay ον accordance with 
the Syriac.” 

The Greeks lay claim to some merit in regard to slije version. John 
Chrysostom is. said to have incited and encouraged the Armenians to 
translate the sacred books, when he was banished to Kukus in Armenia. 
They pegan with the Psalter, and then passed to the other canonical 
books. The banishment of this father from his country actually coin- 
cides with the period when the idea of a national character entered the 
mind of Mesrob; and the influence of the celebrated stranger may ex- 
plain the revival of his ardent desire of a national character and version. 
The account of the Armenians, however, and that of the biographer of 
John Chrysostom do not exactly agree in respect to the book with which 
a beginning was made; the former naming the Proverbs of Solomon 
and the latter the Psalms. 


§ 87. 


The history we have given of the version does not promise a uniform, 
unmixed text, but rather one made up of various materials—of readings 
from the old Syriac version, readings furnished by the Ephesian MS., and 
also readings from Alexandrian MSS. which the pupils of Mesrob would 
not have failed to bring home with them. 

These component parts are easily discoverable in the text. In gen- 
eral it adheres to the Egyptian Recension, but not so closely as not to 
have adopted readings from MSS. of a period anterior to the introduc- 
tion of a Recension into Alexandria. It frequently coincides with 
Codex D in readings peculiar to that MS. alone, or to A and the MSS. 
which Thomas of Charkel collated in the monastery of the Anto- 

nians ; 6. Β. Matt. 15: 32, ἡμέραι τρεῖς εἶσι, nal 700 Gee . .. 18: 33, 
οὐκ ἔδει οὖν καί σε. 19: 10. 17 αἰτία τοῦ ἀνδρός. Mark 2: 9 τὸν κράβ- 
βατον, καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκον σου. 9: 96, ἔφαγεν, καὶ ) ἔδωκε καὶ τοῖς 
σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσι ous οὐκ ἔξεστι. .. . 4: 89, ἀνέμῳ not τῇ ϑαλασσῃ καὶ 
etme. 5: 88, καὶ τρέμουσα ὃ πεποίηκε λάϑρα. 6: 2, ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐν 
τῇ͵ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες. 6: 23, καὶ ὥμοσεν πολλά. 6: 55, ἤρξαντο 
πάντας ἐπί, etc. 

In our history of the text we mentioned certain MSS. which are in- 
deed of recent origin, but are transcripts of ancient MSS. of the xo 
ἕκδοσις, viz. Wetstein 1, 13, 69, and Griesbach 124; the last of which, 
particularly, contains Asiatic readings, and is allied ἰῷ the text of the ‘Pes- 
chito. (δ 29), With these readings the Armenian version often coin- 
cides; and it was these, in part, which got into the version through the 


1 Moses Chor. loc. cit. Rich. Simon, Hist. des vers. loc. cit. 
2 Walton Proleg. XIII. n. 16. 


3 Anonym. Vita Chrysost. c. 113. Διακελεύεσθαι τότε ιναλτήριον καὶ τὴν ἅπασαν 
διαϑήκην πρὸς τὴ» ἐκείνων γλῶτταν μεταποιήσασϑαι. 


ARMENIAN VERSION. Q31 


Ephesian Codex which the pupils of Mesrob brought back with them. 
At least itis difficult to refer them to any other source. FE. g. Matt. 5:18, 
ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. 13, 124.—7: 27, πτῶσις αὐτῆς 
μεγάλη σφόδοα. 18, 33, 124.—12: 14, οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἐξελϑόντες συμ- 
βούλιον ἔλαβον κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 18, 124. —13: 49, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν 
οὐρανῶν, 124.—21: 30, ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, ὑπάγω κύριε. 18, 69, 124. 
— 23: 10, καϑηγηταί" Ore καϑηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἔστιν. 124. —26: 36, καὶ 
λέγει αὐτοῖς, καϑίσατε. 69, 124.—Mark 3: 34, περὶ αὐτὸν μαϑητὰς 
καϑημένους. 18, 69, 124. —8: 14, καὶ εἰ μὴ ἕνα μόνον ἔχοντες ἄρτον. 
1, 13, 69.—8: 15, ζύμης τῶν ‘Howdidver. 1, 13, 69.—8: 17, διαλογί-- 
ξέσϑε ὀλιγόπιστοι. 13,09, 194. - Ὁ; 21, πῶς οὖν οὕπω συνίετε: 69, 124. 
—10: 11, ἐὰν avno ἀπολύσῃ. 1,13, 69, 124. ete. 

Lastly, many readings are taken from the Peschito. Mark 2 : 25, 0 
᾿]ησοὺς wel 6: 6, τὰς κώμας διδάσκων. 8: 94, 25, περιπατοῦντας 
πάλιν ἐπέϑ'. . Ὁ: 4, σὺν Moet συλλαλοῦντες. 9: 29, νηστείᾳ καὶ 
προσὲ ευχη. 10: 48, peveo ea ἐν ὑμῖν μέγας. 12: 99, ἐστὶ τῶν ὁλοκαυτω- 
μάτων. 12: 38, καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασμοῦς. Luke δ: 49, ὅτε ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ 
τοῦ πατρύς. 9: 6, KOTO. κώμας “ai κατὰ πόλεις. Among these the 
following, especially, may be reckoned : Matt. 28: 18, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς" καὶ 
καϑὼς ἀπέσταλκέ μὲ ὃ πατὴρ μου, κᾷγὼω ἐποσεέλλω ὑμᾶς. 


§ 88. 


During the erusades, the rulers of Armenia were closely connected 
with the inhabitants of the West, and became acquainted with the lan- 
guage used in their churches. They strenuously sought an ecclesiasti- 
cal union with them, and this was ardently favored by king Haitho, 
(Abulpharagius calls him 4.3la in Hist. Dyn. 502, but ~ Abulfeda 


casad T. V. Ann. Musl. p. 18,) who afterwards abdicated the gov- 


ernment to his son and entered the order of Franciscans. He is even 
said to have translated from the Latin into Armenian the Prefaces of St. 
Jerome.! 

Gregory, Bishop of Sis and Patriarch of the Armenians, proposed to 
Haitho an ecclesiastical council for this purpose. In his letter to the 
former king he asserts respecting certain topics of dispute, that it is so 
in Jerome, in Beda the Presbyter, and other Latin fathers.” 

Besides what he here says of the Latin fathers and their writings, he 
appeals to 1 John 5: 7, in the beginning of his letter, in favor of the 
use of water in mass.® ΤῸ us this is, at any rate, an evidence that pre- 
paration for an union had been made by altering the Armenian version 
here and there according to the Latin. 

This same passage was expressly cited again in the Synod which was 
held at Sis in 1307, which could not have happened unless it was au- 
thorized by many copies.’ This change of the Armenian text in con- 

1 Michaelis’ Introd. I. Th. ὃ 69, 4th ed. 

2 Collect. Concil. Labbei et Cossartii edit. Mansii. T. XXV. p. 145. 

3 Ibid. p. 141. 

4 Ibid. p 136. 


“ft 


202 7 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 

- ὟΝ 
formity with the Latin MSS. can hardly have been the only one; but 
how far the correctors proceeded can be learned only from ἃ collation 
of ancient Armenian MSS. with the modern. 


§ 99. 


The Armenians had several editions of this version printed in the 
17th century, as the MS. copies were so expensive that they could not ᾿ 
be procured except by the wealthy. By order of a Synod convened in 


» 1662, the Bishop of Erivan, whom we have already mentioned, was 


despatched to Kurope for this purpose by the patriarch. He took up 


his residence in the monastery of Usci, whence in France he was 


called Uscanus. He had the whole Bible printed at Amsterdam in 
ss and the New Testament alone in 1668, which last was re- 
inted in 1698. I have myself an edition of the four Gospels of the 
year 1680, which I find no where mentioned. Τὶ is too small for an 
octavo and too large for a 16mo.; and is embellished with a wood-cut 
at the beginning of each Gospel. There is prefixed to it what appears 
to be a catalogue of the chapters or church-lessons. Not understand- 
ing a word of it, I cannot state the place where it was printed, which 
is given in Armenian characters. 

The Bishop of Erivan was charged with altering the text of these 
editions according to the Vulgate, which he was so little desirous of 
concealing, that he himself freely confesses it in the preface.+ 

There are some later editions, prepared in the monastery of the Ar- 
menians at Venice, viz: “ Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testa- 
mentum, Armenice editum a Joanne Zohrab, Doctore Armeno, 1789. 
Venetiis ex typographia monachorum S. Lazari.” 8vo. The title is 
Armenian; I have given it in Latin as it was translated tome. The 
book contains 1 John 5. 7, marked with an asterisk; for, as the Uscan 
edition contained the verse, the editor, as I was informed by a friend 
of his, was unwilling to omit it, although it is found in no ancient Ar- 
menian MS. 'This edition was reprinted in the year 1816. A criti- 


cal edition of the Old and New Testament was prepared in the same 


monastery, and printed in 1805 in large 4to. About twenty MSS. 
were made use of, the various readings of which are subjoined in the 
lower margin. Short scholia, in Armenian, were likewise added in ex- 
planation of the text. 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 


§ 90. 


After the death of Alexander, the Greeks multiplied in Egypt ; they 
surrounded the throne of the Ptolemies, and possessed themselves of 
the public at The language of the court and state officers natu- 


4 1 Roepe general str le Nouveau Test. des Messrs. Beausobre et L’Enfant. T. 
p. 17 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 233 

« 
rally extended itself into Egypt by degrees, first in the vicinity of the 
court, and then into the remote portions of the country. Yet it could 
not extirpate the hereditary language of the nation, but the latter was 
compelled to adopt many Greek words, and to alter its construction ac- 
cording to that of the former. Thus a third sprung from the mixture of 
the two, which has been called the Coptic language, probably from 
Coptos, then the capital of Upper Egypt, where, ata distance from 
court, the ancient language and manners most pertinaciously retained 
their authority. 

After the fall of the Ptolemies, it began again to rear its head and to 
dislodge from its supremacy a language which had been introduced by 
foreigners who were now without influence. The Greek, however, 
obtained in Lower Egypt and in the districts bordering on the north- 
ern coast, still longer, it would seem, than in the upper country, on 
account of the brisk trade and commerce with other nations ; and fur- 
ther, because in those parts the Greeks settled in the greatest numbers 
and for the longest period. In particular, at Alexandria, its prevalence 
was undisturbed ; Greek writers appearing in this city at avery late 
period. 


§ 91. 


At what time the Greek became so nearly extinct that versions were 
required, or how high an authority we may ascribe to these versions, 
may be accurately determined from the copious investigations of a 
man of much merit in this department of learning.! 

Some have asserted that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, there 
were Egyptian Bishops who could not even sign their names in Greek, 
simple as was the form for that purpose. The fact is not exactly so; 
yet it is remarkable that at least one, Kalosirios, Bishop of Arsinoe, 
was obliged to do it with the aid of an interpreter.* The Archiman- 
drite, Barsuma, was likewise in the same predicament; but he was a 
Syrian. The additional assertion that, in the great council at Ephesus, 
certain Egyptians signed their names through an interpreter, is not 
borne out by the records. It is reasonable to suppose that those 
Bishops would not have been deputed to it who were least skilled 
in the language in which the business was transacted. We cannot 
therefore, expect so much information on this point from what occurr 
in foreign countries, as from those which happened in Egypt itself. 

We here meet in the outset with Father Pachomius, whose rules for the 
monks of the. Tabennitic monastery were originally composed by him in 
the Egyptian language, and were subsequently translated into Greek, and 
also by Jerome into Latin.3 It has been too hastily inferred from this, 
that no one in the monastery understood Greek ; but so much, certain- 


1 Dr. Friedr. Manter, ‘“ Uber das Alter der Kopt. Uebersetz. des N. T.” in 
Eichhorn’s “ Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Litteratur,’’ [Vth. vol. 1st and 3d articles. 
2 Καλοσίριος ἐπίσκοπος Agowoirov, ἑρμηνεύοντος αὐτὸν Ἰουλίου διακόνου av- 
τοῦ. 

3 Hieronym. Pref.in Reg. S. Pachomii, ἃ 2. “‘ Urgebant autem missi ad me 
ob hanc ipsam causam Leontius Presbyter et ceteri cum eo fratres, accito nota- 
rio; ut erant de Hgytiacd in Grecam linguam versa, nostro sermone dictari.” 


- 


234 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 


ly, was implied in this fact, viz : that Pachomius considered the language 
of the country as the one in which he could make himself understood 
by all without exception, that he regarded it as the current language of 
seven thousand monks; for so high does Palladius reckon their number. 

Now as Pachomius, in the 139th and 140th section of his rules, re- 
quires all his pupils to learn to read, and they were so far compelled to 
it, even against their will, that every one was to be able read at least 
the New Testament and Psalter, the existence of versions to be read 
is presupposed. For, from the language he uses in his rules, it is clear 
that he did not expect them to understand Greek, and yet he requires 
of them all without exception to learn their letters, to receive instruc- 
tion in reading at certain hours of the day, and to be able to read at 
least the New Testament and the Psalter. 

On one occasion, Father Pachomius sent some of his monastic breth- 
ren to Alexandria, to salute the Archbishop of Alexandria, and to pur- 
chase some necessaries for the sick. An Alexandrian named Theo- 
dore saw them in the Church, and requested them through an interpre- 
ter to permit him to accompany them to the Thebaid. They consented. 
Pachomius kindly received the stranger, and that he might have some 
one to converse with, gave him for a companion an old man who under~ 
stood Greek.! 

Theodore, a different person from the preceding, the favorite pupil 
of Pachomius, and his successor after his death, caused the letter pub- 
lished by Athanasius at Easter to be translated into Egyptian, for the 
use of the monastery, that it might serve as a rule for the monks. 
Whenever he addressed the assembled monks, he appointed an interpre- 
ter who repeated his words after him in Greek, for the benefit of the Al- 
exandrians and foreigners who might be unacquainted with the Egyp- 
tian language.” 

An imperial deputy, called ἄμα Arsenius, visited the monasteries in 
Upper Egypt, which were subject to Theodore, in search of a person 
who, it was suspected, was concealed in one of them. In the monas- 
tery of Phebon he assembled the brethren together and questioned them 
on the subject, through an interpreter. Fortunately there was a for- 
eigner in the monastery, a native of Armenia, who knew Greek, and 
defended his brethren so ably before this imperial envoy, that he de- 
parted without further search.? 

We meet with another fact of not much later date than this in Lower 
Egypt, on the Libyan side, in the latter half of the fourth century. Pal- 
ladius, who travelled at that period through Egypt, as well as other 
countries, for the purpose of visiting the most celebrated monastic in- 
stitutions, came to Nitria, where he saw John of Lycopolis, one of the 
abbots of the desert, and was desirous of conversing with him. But 
the old man understood so little Greek that he required an interpreter 
in order to converse with the stranger. Yet it appears from the tenor 
of their discourse, that John was conversant with the books of the New 


“4 Zoega Catalog. Codic Copticorum MSS. qui in museo Borgiano asservantur, 
. Rome mpccex. Codd. Memphit. n. xiv. p. 76, 77, Copt. 81, Lat. 
2 Zoega Catal. Cod. Memph. xivt. p. 83. Copt. p. 86. Lat. Comp. Codd. 


Sahid. ἢ. crxxvi. p. 371. 
3 Zoega Codd. Memph. xxv. p. 81, 82. Copt. and 85 Lat. 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 235 
Testament. There must, therefore, have existed in Lower Egypt a 
version of these books in the language of the country. 

One of the founders and most active patrons of the Egyptian monas- 
teries was unacquainted with the Greek language, and was obliged to 
make use of an interpreter when he was addressed in Greek. We 
mean Antonius, who had acquired celebrity as early as the time of the 
Nicene Council. That he was ignorant of Greek, we are informed by 
Palladius, from the mouth of a man who lived a great while with Anto- 
nius, and acted himself as his interpreter.” 

Isaac, another of his interpreters, is also mentioned by Jerome in his 
life of Hilarion, the hermit.® 

As Antonius possessed such extensive repute, he had frequent occa- 
sion to edify others by hortatory letters. Jerome praises certain exhor- 
tations of this nature, seven in number, which were all composed in the 
Egyptian language, and afterwards translated into Greek,* 

They have also been published ina Latin version through the press.® 
An extensive acquaintance with the New Testament, as well as the 
Old, is evinced in them, although he could have read it only in his na- 
tive language. | 
, Athanasius, his biographer, who represents himself as one of the pu- 
pils of this pious man, says that his first determination in favor of re- 
tirement and acontemplative life was occasioned by hearing the Gos- | 
pel, and particularly the passage Matt. 19: 21, read in the Church; and 
that he was completely confirmed in it on entering the church the second 
time while the Gospel was being read, and among other passages, Matt. 
11; 34. 

From this time he took up his residence in a district of the Arsinoitic 
name, in Middle Egypt, where in a short time he collected around him 
many pupils, on whom, having assembled them together, he inculcated 
the duties of their calling, ina long discourse in the Egyptian lan- 
guage, τῇ diyuntiaxy φωνῇ. The many citations from the Old 
and New Testament, which occur in it, evince a more than ordinary ac- 
quaintance with the Bible.’ 


1 Palladii Historia Lausiaca. c. XLIII. De Abbate Joanne urbis Lyco. p. 
963.in Magna Biblioth. Vett. Patr. in XVII. Tomos distributa. T. XIII. Paris, 
1654, fol. , 

3 Vita Hilarionis, c. 30. ,‘‘Repertis ibi duobus monachis Isaac et Pelusiano, 
quorum Isaac interpres Antonii fuerat. 

2 Palladius c. 26. de Eulogio Alexandrino, p. 941. Τούτων τῶν ὅλων λόγων 
ἑρμενεὺς αὐτὸς γέγονα, tov μακαρίου  Avrwviov “Ελληνιστὶ μη εἰδότος. Ἐγὼ γὰρ 
ἠπιστάμην ἀμφοτέρων τὰς γλῶσσας, καὶ ἑρμένευσα αὐτοῖς. 

4 Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. V. Antonius. ‘‘ Misit Egyptiace ad diversa 
monasteria apostolici sensus sermonisque epistolas septem, que in Grecam lin-. 
guam translate sunt, quarum precipua est ad Arsinoitas. 

5 Biblioth. Patr. per Margarin. De la Bigne, Paris 1576. fol. P. I. p. 91—110. 
Fragments of the Egyptian text, the end of the third, the fourth, and the begin- 
ning of the fifth letter, are inexistence in the Borgian Museum. Zoega Catal., 
Codd. Sahid. n. CLXXI. p. 363. Fragments of others are found in Mingarelli, 
Codd. Nanian. Fasc. I. p. CXCVIII. seq. 

6 Athanas. Vit. S. Anton.c.2. Elondtev εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ συνέβη τότε το 
εὐαγγέλιον ἀναγινάσκεσϑαι, καὶ ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος τῷ πλουσίῳ x. τ. A, 
ς. 3. Ὡς δὲ πάλιν εἰσελϑὼν εἰς τὸ κυριάκὸν ἤκουσε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ x. T. λ. 

7 Athanas. Vit. S. Ant. c. 16. 45. 


236 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 

Subsequently, to escape the intrusions of curiosity, he retired to re- 
moter regions of the Thebaid, where he delivered discourses to the an- 
chorites about him, which are full of biblical passages.! 

Athanasius further states, that when Greek philosophers visited him 
he needed an interpreter in order to converse with them.” 

When he spoke or wrote to his own countrymen, he spoke or wrote 
in Egyptian ; when he was visited by Greeks, he spoke through an in- 
terpreter. He generally had an interpreter about him; and a writer, 
who had himself acted in this capacity, assures us that he had no know- 
ledge of the Greek language. I do not see what more could be desired 
‘to substantiate the fact that Antonius did not understand Greek. 

But, it is said, we are told in a biography of him that he learned 
Greek suddenly by a divine miracle. What biography? Were the 
ancients acquainted with any besides those of Athanasius and Evagri- 
us, the latter of which was only a translation of the former? No per- 
son of respectability and talent ventured to attempt one after Athana- 
sius. Jerome excuses himself on account of such a predecessor, and 
Ruffinus represents it as superfluous and impracticable to execute such 
a work after him. What legend is there, then, to appealto? The 
Bollandists found one which they esteemed worthy of regard; and it 
must possess very great antiquity and authority to contradict contempo- 
rary writers and even the very interpreter of Antonius. But, if he 
did not understand Greek, how happened it that he had, and how 
was it possible for him to have, so intimate an acquaintance with 
the Old and New Testament, except through a version? According 
to Augustine, he could even repeat the whole of the Sacred Scriptures 
from memory ;? which is the less extraordinary, as there were many 
among the dwellers in the desert who could do the same.* 

Thus, in the fourth century, Egyptian versions of the New Testa- 
ment were currentin Nitria, in the Arsinoitic Nome, in the Thebaid, 
in Upper, Lower, and Middle Egypt. This would certainly be a vener- 
able age for these documents, even were none of them entitled to 
claim a higher antiquity. 

There are, however, hints from which we may infer an earlier exist- 
ence of the Egyptian versions. At the period of Dioclesian’s persecu- 
tion, just at the commencement of the fourth century, the Pretor visited 
Upper Egypt, in search of Christians ; and one giving himself up of his 
own accord, he sat in judgment on him, tried him with the assistance 
of an interpreter, and then sentenced him to death.® 

Hierakas of Leonto, about the close of the 3d century, composed 
books in the Egyptian language ; particularly a treatise on the works 


1 Athanas. Vit. S. Anton. c. 55. 

2 Loc. cit. ο. 72. Πότε γοῦν φιλόσοφοι δύο ἤλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν “Ἑλληνες....ἐξ-- 
ελθὼν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔρη Ov ἑρμηνεως. c. 77." Eqn πάλιν δὲ ἑρμηνέως. 

3 Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. L. I. ὃ 4. 


4 Palladius. ο. XII. in Ammonio. “Παλαιὰν δὲ καὶ καινὴν γραφὴν ἁπεστήϑισεν. 
Vita Abb. Aphthonii c. XXXIX. ᾿“ποστηϑιζουσι πᾶσας τὰς γραφάς. Comp. c. 
XXXII. de Erone. Epiphan. L. III. Heres. LVIII. p. 1071,’ Ev στόματι δὲ σχεδὸν 
πᾶσαν γραφὴν ἀπαγγέλλουσι. 

5 Zoega. Catal. Codd. Memph. n. XIX. p. 20, 21. 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.» 237 
of the six days. Such a production must certainly have been preceded 
by a version of the Mosaic writings.' 

Extensive, however, as were the encroachments of the Greek lan- 
guage until the downfall of the Ptolemies, it was yet steadfastly exclud- 
ed from the temples. Prayers and praises were offered to the gods in 
Egyptian only ; and this was exclusively the language of religious wor- 
ship. From this fact it may have become expedient, perhaps necessa- 
ry, to introduce the Egyptian language into the Christian assemblies, in 
prayer, singing and exhortation ; and hence in a short time there must 
have been occasion for a version of the sacred books.” 


§ 92. 


The Egyptian, or as some prefer to term it, the Coptic language, is 
divided into several dialects, the two principal of which are the Upper 
Egyptian or Thebaic, and the Lower Egyptian or Memphitic. The 
Arabians call the first likewise, ¢ 4x20, that of the Upper country, 


the Sahidic; and the other cis ΡΈΞΙ͂Ψ, the dialect of the Coast, 


although its seat was always at a distance from the coast ofthe Medi- 
terranean Sea, and it prevailed further in the interior of the country 
towards Memphis. Besides this, they reckon also a third, which is 
called (5 “οὐδ, the Bashmuri, or the Bschamyri, of the original 


seat of which we shall speak hereafter.° 


§ 93. 


Several beautiful MSS. of the version of the New Testament into the 
dialect of Lower Egypt are yet extant in the Libraries at Rome, Paris, 
and Oxford. Printed copies of it, also, are in the hands of the learned.4 

Those who are qualified to judge are not, it is true, entirely satisfied as 
to the qualifications or mode of procedure of the editor. But it will ever 
be great merit to have broken the way, and to have been the first to 
bring to light so valuable a document. . 

The version was made from the revised text, and in the Gospels fol- 
lows the MSS. BCL, in the Acts and Epistles ABC, and in general 
that class of MSS. which we have denominated Hesychian. We may 
hence infer its value, and how much it deserves to be examined with 
fresh industry. Its MSS. often vary from each other, and the critic 
might thus have excellent employment. 


1 Epiph. L. If. Her. XLVII. ὃ 3. p. 712. “Συνεγράψατο δὲ “Ἑλληνικῶς τὸ 
καὶ «Δϊγυπτιακῶς ἐξηνηστάμενος καὶ συντάξας τῆς ἑξαημέρου. 

2 Porphyr. De Abstinent. L. IV. § 9. From Porphyry, Euseb. de Prep. Evang. 
LI. c. 4. Steph. p.57. Ed. Vigeri. p.94. Clem. Alex. Pedagog. L. II. ο. 2 
Venet. 252, 253. 

3 See Quatremére, Recherches sur la langue et la literature de 1’ Egypte. 
Paris, 1808. p. 21. for examples extracted from the Arabic-Coptic Grammar of 
Athanasius of Kus. : 

4 Nov. Test. Egyptium vulgo Copticum, ex MSS. Bodleianis descripsit, cum 
Vaticano et Parisiensibus contulit, et in Latinum sermonem convertit David 
Wilkins, Oxonii e Theatro Sheldoniano. 1716. 4to. 


238 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 


We may determine somewhat from this observation in regard to 
the age of this version; it cannot have been composed before the time 
of Hesychius, i. 6. in the middle of the 3dcentury. Now, if it was cur- 
rent in Lower Egypt in the 4th century, the period at which it origin- 
ated is determined with tolerable accuracy; as accurately as can be 
expected in a matter in which we are obliged to draw inferences from a 
comparison of facts, for want of express and definite information. 


§ 94. <> alae 


Woide first presented to the learned world specimens of the Upper 
Egyptian, Sahidic, version of the Gospels, in the readings of a few pa- 
ges which he found in the British Museum.', After him, John Aloys 
Mingarelli published the text of some fragments of the Gospels which 
belonged to the Library of the.Chevalier Nani, illustrating it with notes.” 
Similar fragments existed in the Library of Cardinal Borgia, which were 
examined and the various readings published by Minter, now Bishop of 
Seeland.? He also added Woide’s readings and those furnished by the 
Nanian fragments. Meanwhile Anthony Georgi examined some very 
ancient fragments of the Thebaic version which were in Borgia’s pos- 
session, and which contained by the side of the version the Greek text 
in uncial characters, from which however the former very frequently de- 
viated. They contained John 6: 21—59 and 6: 68—8: 23.4 Such were 
the fragments of the Gospels which were then known and published in 
Europe. . 

The Bodleian Library possesses the Acts according to this version, 
excepting the last four chapters, in a MS. (Cod. Huntingt. 394, 8vo.) 
from which Woide communicated to Michaelis some remarkable read- 
ings, which were published by him.° 

This MS. contains also the Catholic Epistles of John and Jude, and 
a part of the 2d of Peter. The various readings of the first two, viz. 
the Epistles of John and Jude, have been published in the same way 
through Woide’s means.® 

Of the Pauline Epistles there were some fragments in the possession 
of Card. Borgia, which were collated by Minter; and three of them, 
from the two Epistles to Timothy, he published in full,'in order to give 
those acquainted with this language an opportunity to judge respecting 
the character of this version.” 


1 John Andreas Cramer’s “ Beytrige zur Beforderung theologischer und an- 
derer wichtigen Kenntnisse.” II]. Th. 1779. 

2 Agyptiorum codd. reliquie Venetiis in bibliotheca Naniana asservate. Fasc. 
I. Bononiz. 1785. 

3 M. Friedr. Munter Comment. de indole vers. N. T. Sahidice Hafnie 1789. 

4 Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis Greco-Copto-Thebaicum seculi IV. Ad- 
dilamentum ex vetustissimis membranis lectionum evangelicarum . . . ex Ve- 
literno Museo Borgiano. . . opera et studio F. Augustini Antonii Georgii ere- 
mite Augustiniani. Rome apud. Ant. Fulgonium. 1789. 4to. 

5 J. D. Michaelis Oriental. exeget. Bibliothek III. Th. p. 199-208. 


6 Idem. X. Th. 1776. p. 198-214. , 
7 M. Friedr. Minter Comm. de indole vers. N. T. Sahid.—accedunt fragmenta 
Epist. Pauli ad Timotheum. ὃ 16. n. 65. seq. j 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 239 


About the same time, Adler transcribed some passages of Matthew 
and Luke out of the increasing treasures of the Cardinal, and subse- 
quently communicated them to Woide, who continued to collect frag- 
ments with laudable assiduity. The latter gathered single chapters of 
the Gospels and Epistles, and even smaller quotations, from church MSS., 
and procured further fragments from Upper Egypt,' and with the aid of 
what had already been published through the press, gradually succeed- 
ed in compiling a Sahidic New Testament, which has indeed many 
chasms, but is of great consequence in criticism and philology. Woide 
died without having completed his undertaking, but it was ably finished 
by Henry Ford, who corrected some mistakes of Woide’s, and published 
the whole in a splendid form with several additions, as an appendix to 
Codex Alexandrinus.2 

Unfortunately neither of the two English scholars had access to the 
Borgian collection, which contained many additional fragments of the 
Gospels and Pauline Epistles; among others the Epistles to the Philip- 
pians entire, excepting a few verses, and some chapters of the Apo- 
calypse. Zoega has given a valuable catalogue of the passages suppli- 
ed by these fragments, which must be sought in the Museum at Vel- 
letri by some future editor of the Sahidic New Testament.? Had he, 
instead, incorporated these supplements into his excellent work on the 
Borgiano-Egyptian MSS., we should have possessed what must now be 
sought anew. In place of this he contented himself with presenting but 
three fragments, Ephes. 5: 21-23. Rev. 19: 7—18. Rev. 20: 7—21: 3.4 

ν᾿ 


§ 95. 


Its text closely resembles that of the Hesychian MSS. ΤῸ is not, how- 
ever a revised text, but that of the χουν") ἔχδοσις, which is indeed very 
similar to the Hesychian, having proceeded from it. But in general it 
has no precise character, frequently agreeing with the Cambridge MS. 
D in peculiar readings, and frequently likewise containing peculiar varia- 
tions of its own of considerable importance. 

We will extract some readings, at present found only i in D. In Luke 
8: 41, the Sahidic version omits thie words, ὑπῆρχε καί ; Luke 8: 42, it 
reads ἀποϑνήσχουσα, instead of the clause καὶ αὕτη ἀπέθνησκεν; Luke 
8: 43, οὐχ ἴσχυσεν Um οὐδενὸς ϑεραπευϑηναεϊ is thus given, ἢν οὐδὲ εἷς 
ἴσχυεν ϑεραπεῦσαι" 9: 10, for εἰς τόπον ἔρεμον πόλ. ..2ad, Bydo. 
it reads εἰς κώμην λεγομένην, Βηϑσαϊδα" 9: 57, ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ---διὰ 
τῆς ἡμέρας" 13: 95, καὶ κρούειν τὴν ϑύραν, it omits τὴν ϑύραν, and in 
13: 27, the words πόϑεν ἐστε" 92: 24, αὐτῶν δοκεῖ εἶναι--ἄν εἴη " 89: 
26, VEWTEQOS—MLZQOTEQOS * 23: 14, εὖρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον 
-εῦρον αἴτιον; John 6: 23, the words EVLAQLTHOUYTOS τοῦ κυρίου 
are excluded ; 6: 25, ὧδε γέγονας--ὧδε ἐλήλυϑας" 7:10, ὡς is wanting 
before ἐν κρυπτῷ" 7: 23, ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε---πῶς ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε᾽ 7: 52, καὶ 


"Ἢ 1 Woidii I De vers. bibliorum Agypt. dissert. c. 2. De vers. N. T. Sahid. 


2 Appendix ad editionem N. T. e cod. MS. Alexandrino a C. G. Woide des- 
cripti, in qua continentur fragm. N. T.—dialecti superioris Agypti etc. Oxon 9 
Typograph. Clarendon. 1799. fol. 


3 Zoega, Cat. Codd. Copt. MSS. Musei Borgian. p. 103—106. 
4 Zoega, loc. cit. p. 218—20. 


+ 


? 


240 EGYPTIAN aaa 


ids ὁ ὅτι---καὶ ἴδε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτε" 10: a, τοῦ ἦν ane éorw ὁ 
ποιμήν" 10: 12 ἁρπάζει αὐτὰ καὶ---ρπὸ ἐν wat 11: 33, ἐνεβριμή- 
σατο τῷ πνεύματι, καὶ ἐτάραξεν. ἑαυτὸν---ἔταρο ot on τῷ πνεύματι, ὡς 
ἐμβριμώμενος" 11: 39, 7 ddehq ἡ---“7]άρϑα ἡ ἀδελφή" ‘12: 29, Poor 
τὴν vey ονέναι---ὅτι βροντὴ γέγονεν" 12: 30, ἡ gory γέγονεν---ἡ φωνὴ 
ἠλ 9: 96, ὑπάγω ἐγώ" 17: 5, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, παρὰ 
σοι σοὶ mQ0 τοὺ γενέσϑαι τὸν κύσμον" 18: 1, χειμάῤῥου, τοῦ 
Αεδοοῦ * 20: 22, ἐνεφύσησε αὐτοῖς χα. . .. : 

_We will give a few examples of such readings as are peculiar to it 
ne John 6: 33, ὁ γὰρ a οὔτος υἱὸς τοῦ “θεοῦ ἐστί" 6: 39, ἵνα 

ς δέδωχέ μοι, μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐ ξ αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτοῦς" a 11. 
ΩΝ αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναί, καὶ Y ἔλεγον᾽ 7: 26, οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ ἀρχι- 
ἐρεῖς, ὅτε" 10: 7, εἰμὶ ὁ ποιμὴν τῶν προβάτων" 10:91, οἱ h 02 
ἵνα éxBodwou αὐτὸν" 10: 33, ov λιϑάζομέν σέ; αλλ᾽ ore ᾿βλαῦ φημεῖ 
14: 22, ᾿μυύδας 6 Kavavirns, κύριε, τί γέγονεν, ὅτε, ἡμῖν μέλλεις ἐμ- 
φανίζειν σεαυτὸν, καὶ οὐχὶ μέλλεις ἐμφανίξειν σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ κ. T. A. 

The extracts from the Huntington MS. of the Sahidic Acts of the 
Apostles, which Woide has presented, all tend to show that there is a 
remarkable similarity between the text of Codex D and that of the Sa- 
hidic version. From the specimens which he has given it is indeed ve- 
ry great. 

There is no Greek MS. now extant which exhibits the xoww7 ἔχδοσις 
of the text of the Catholic Epistles. Their appearance in this version, 
it is true, resembles very much that of the MSS. of the Hesychian edi- 
tion ; they are not, however, perfectly like them, but exhibit variations 
which confirm what we have before said concerning the text which is the 
basis of this version. We will cite some examples which will convince 
us of the unregulated condition of the text. 1 Epistle of John 1: 2, 
καὶ ἐφανερώϑη ἡμῖν, ἑωράκαμεν αὐτὴν" ο ἑωράκαμεν κι τ. 4, 2:17, 


oO δὲ ποιῶν τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ GEov, μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ὡς αὐτὸς μένει εἰς 


αἰῶνα. ‘Thus Cyprian also read the passage : «(μὲ autem fecerit vol- 
untatem Dei, manet in eternum, quomodo Deus manct in eternum.” 
(Tract. 1]. De Hab. virg. and De lapsis. Serm. 5tus.) In 1 John 3: 
10, this version reads instead of πᾶς ὃ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, as like- 
wise Origen (Comment. in Toh. T. IV. Opp. p. 323,) and Tertullian 
(De pudicit. C.19) : πᾶς ὁ μὴ. ὧν δίκαιος... i John 4: 2, γινώσ- 
METAL TO πνεῦμα τοῦ ϑεουῦ, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. 94 Bpistle of 
John 3, μαρτυρούντων περὶ σοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, and verse 10, καὶ μὴ ἀρ- 
κούμ. ἐπὶ TOUT. οὐδὲ ἐπιδέχεται ὑμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἐπιδέχεται ἀδελφοὺς. 
It is nearly so with Paul’s Epistles. They ordinarily adhere to the 
ABC, or to ABCDEFG; sometimes also to DEFG, or some of 
S ) when they stand alone, unsupported by the rest. The last 
s, 6. δ᾿. in 1 Cor. 2: 4, πειϑοῖς σοφίας ; 8: 13, ἀποχαλυφϑής- 
; 10: 27, where after ἀπίστων, the MSS. DEFG subjoin εἰς 
12: 10, where the version reads διάκρισις, like G.; 14: 14, 
, προσεύχωμαι FG ; Galat. 4: 21, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀναγινώσκετε; 28, 
ὑμεῖς---τέκνα ἐστέ DFG; 6: 2, ἀναπληῤώσετε, G ; Col. 3: 8, ἐκ τοῦ 
στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω G; 3: 18, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε 
DEFG ; 24 Thess. 1: 12, it omits the word Χριστοῦ after τὸ 
ἡμῶν ᾿Δησοῦ, like DE; 2: 2, it has ἀπὸ τοῦ voos ὑμῶν, like DE; 
2: 1, παρακαλεῖ οὖν πρῶτον, like DE; 2: 5 , διαλογισμοῦ, lik FG: 


5 . 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 241 


6: 17, τοῖς πλουσίοις τοῦ νῦν αἰῶνος, DE; and narra πλουσίως εἰς 
ἀπόλαυσιν, likewise like DE. “ 

Itcontains, however , variations not found in any other MSS. ; as, 1 Tim. 
2: 7, ἀλήϑ. λέγ. οὐ ψεύδομαι, ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσι ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληϑείᾳ; 9: 
2, ἄνδρα νηφάλιον ἐν σωφροσύνῃ, κόσμιον ; 3:15, πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ ϑεοῦ 
ζῶντος ἀναστρέφεσϑαι, ἥτες ἐστὶ στῦλος ; 0: 10, φιλαργυρία, αἵ τινος 
ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπεπλάνησεν ; 6: 90, τὴν παραϑήκην φύλαξον, ἣν παρέ- 
ϑηκα σοι, ἐκτρεπ. - . 

Considering the city through which the Greek language ‘was in- 
troduced into Egypt, and its situation in respect to different p + the 
country, and estimating accordingly the progress of Hellenism by a 

ial communication to remote districts, it cannot be denied that the _ 
᾿ must have reached the Thebaid late, gained a comparatively 
feeble footing, and there first fell into decay and disuse at the extinction 
of the power of the Ptolemies. Alexandria, situated on the borders of 
the country, or rather itself the entrance to Egypt from the sea, was the 
place whence Hellenism diffused itself first in the vicinity, then gradu- 
ally, step by step, into the remotest districts. In the vicinity of Alex- 
andria, Hellenism constantly received fresh sustenance, while the parts 
of the country more remote from court, the special rendezvous of the 
Greeks, were less subject to the intrusions of them and their language. 
Hence, when the ancient language again reared its head, after the ex- 
tinction of the Greek supremacy, it first asserted its prerogative where 
its strength was greatest, viz. in Upper Egypt. Consequently, it was in 
this part of the country that a version of the Bible in the national lan- 
guage was first needed and desired. 

I derive a further argument for the very high antiquity of the Theba- 
ic version from the character of its language. It is surprising to find 
in the language of the Upper Egyptian version a much greater 
number of Greek words, than are contained in the language of the 
Memphitic or Lower Egyptian version; as exactly the reverse would 
be expected, viz. that the latter should be most disigured and corrupted 
by the Greek. The solution of this thing lies in the difference between 
the versions in point of antiquity. When the Memphitic version was 
composed, the Egyptian was already to a considerable degree purified 
from foreign innovations ; while, on the contrary, when the Sahidic ver- 
sion was executed, the language still contained the old foreign materials 
which had been forced into it by the supremacy of the Greeks. 


§ 96. 


In the Borgian Museum there were found small fragments'6f. a third 
Egyptian version, the. language of which differs from both of those 
which we have just been considering. ‘These contained the passages 
1 Cor. 7: 836—9: 16, and 14: 33—15: 35, which were published by 
two scholars nearly at the same time, although, to say the least, inde- 
pendently of each other; viz. by Georgi at Rome, and by Minter at 
Copenhagen. ‘The Cardinal subsequently obtained further fragments 
version, viz. two passages of Isaiah, and the following of the New 


Georgi i in Pref. ad Fragm. Joann. Greco-Copto-Thebaicum, ὃ. 19, p. LV. 
seq. Minter in Commentat. de vers. N. T. Sahid. ὃ. 12, 13. p- 75. seq. 


ἡ ΟἹ ” 


242 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 


Testament: John 4: 28—34. 4: 36—40. 4: 483—47. 4: 48—53. 1 Cor. 
6: 9—9: 16. 14: 3—15: 35. Ephes. 6: 18 to the end. Philipp. 1: 1 
—2: 2. 1 Thess. 1: 1—3: 5. Heb. 5: 10—10: 22. These, like the 
former, were published by two competitors, equally independent of 
each other, in the same cities, Rome and Copenhagen. Zoega adorned 
his catalogue of the Borgiano-Coptic MSS. with them,! and Engelbreth 
published them separately.2 The former gave only the bare text, with- 
out any addition, and even without any division of the words. Engel- 
breth bestowed more pains upon it, accompanied it with a version, 
with an introduction and critical notes at the end, and gained himself 
the credit of accomplishing with industry and ability what must at 
any rate have been done. On the other hand, there are some discrep- 
ancies between them in regard to the text, the true reading of which 
frequently appears to be on the side of Zoega, by whom the original 
could be consulted repeatedly and .at pleasure, and accurately inves- 
tigated.3 

These fragments, the language of which is neither Thebaic nor Mem- 
phitic, led father Georgi to the opinion that a third dialect was now 
discovered, viz. the Bashmuric. In looking around for the district in 
which this dialect was prevalent, several reasons led him to fix upon the 
Oases, and particularly the Ammonian Oasis; and he even termed it 
the Ammonian dialect.* 

His mistake as to Bashmur, or the country of the Bashmurites, was cor- 
rected by Zoega, who proved that Bashmur was a country to the eastward 
of the Delta, which was consequently the seat of the Bashmurian dialect 
and version.> A French scholar has shown more at length and from a 
Citation of numerous passages, that Bashmur was situated in the Delta to 
the East, between the Damietta and Ashmunerroman arms of the Nile. 
Yet, from the striking analogy of these fragments with the dialect of 
Upper Egypt, he was induced to transfer the seat of the dialect which they 
present towards Upper Egypt; and in order to avoid the force of the 
passage in Athanasius of Kus, who enumerates but three dialects in 
Egypt, he makes the two Upper Oases, the smaller and greater, to be 
situated not in Egypt, but by its side, without 1 

The Danish scholar, who investigated and published the first frag- 
ments nearly at the same time with Georgi, came to a different conclu- 
sion from this. He flatly denied that their peculiarity of language was 
sufficient to require the admission of a separate dialect, and maintained 
that it was only a variety of the Upper Egyptian.?. Engelbreth, on the 
other hand, endeavored to sustain the title of this version to be considered 


1 Zoega, Catal. p. 145—169. 


2 W.F. Engelbreth Fragm. Basmurico-Copt. Vet. et Nov. Test. que in Mu- — 


seo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, etc. Haunie, 1811. 4to. 

3 Observat. sur les fragm. Coptes-Bashmouriques publiés par M. Engelbreth. 
Article de M. C ampollion le jeune. p. 350—361, dans les Annales Encyclopé- 
diques. Fevrier, 1818. 

4 Georgi lib. cit. Pref. ὃ 14—17. 

5 Zoega Cat. p. 140—144. Quatremére, Recherches sur la langue et la littera- 
ture de |’ Egypte. Sect. V. p. 147. seq. 

6 Quatremére, Recherches. p. 216, 217. 

7 Munter Comment. de vers. N. T. Sahid. ὃ 12. p. 77. 


Ἷ 
é 
᾿. 
| 
ΐ 
‘| 
Ι. 


EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 243 


as a distinct dialect, which he asserts to be the Bashmuric, the seat of 
which was in the Delta!’ Champollion the younger, however, who re- 
views his position, perceives no necessity of supposing it a peculiar dia- 
lect. The language of the third version, he thinks, was intermediate 
between the Upper and Lower Egyptian, the seat of which was probably 
Faiom.” 

It would seem that in the investigation of this question, which we 


cannot here discuss, sufficient distinction has not been made between 


dialect and idiom. The softness of pronunciation which is one peculi- 
arity of this version, (inasmuch as it almost always avoided the aspirates, 
8, Φ, X, as also Phet and Chet, and instead of P, the enunciation of 
which seems to have been impossible, uses, like Alcibiades, the letter 
A,) as likewise the permutation of 4 for O, and # for 4, are perfect- 
ly within the limits of an idiom. The case is the same in respect to par- 
ticular words which are current onlyin certain districts.’ If there be no 
peculiar form added in the variation of verbs and nouns, so that a 
difference is not only manifest in the pronunciation or in particular 
expressions, but is inherent in the structure of the language, it cannot 
be regarded as a dialect. 

But this is not the case with the (so called) Bashmuric fragments. In 
the forms which they exhibit they adhere to the Thebaic dialect, yet 
not so exclusively as not to adopt some from the Memphitic; being a 
kind of combination of the two. On this account, I have long indulged 
the conjecture that they represented the idiom of Middle Egypt. If 
Champollion restricts this supposition to the province of Faiom, I can- 
not see what absolute objection there can be against him, but I am de- 
sirous of seeing the promised arguments in favor of that district. 

This is not, however, the only Egyptian idiom of which remains are 
extant. Zoega tells us of a monastic legend which vibrates between 
the Thebaic, Memphitic, and Bashmuric dialects, and of which he is 
inclined to make a fourth.* 

A more important question to us is, what text the third version fol- 
lows? Engelbreth presents us with the collation of it, the result of 
which is as follows. The fragment John 6: 28—53, usually adheres to 
the MSS. BCL. The Pauline Epistles follow the MSS. ABC; but 
they are not confined to this regulated text, and frequently make a di- 
gression to DEFG, or some one of these MSS. Hence they exhibit 
the ancient text of the unrevised or common edition. This state of the 
text terminated in the last half of the 3d century in Egypt and Asia ; 
so that we sce the antiquity to which this version lays claim. The char- 


1 Engelbreth Fragmenta Basmur. Copt. ὃ 2. p. VII. seq. 
2 Observations dans les Annales Encyclopédiques. Fevrier, 1818. 


3 Among the words enumerated as peculiar to the Bashmurie dialect, (En 
breth Fragm. Basmur. Copt. p. IX.) are, in Isai. V. 20. KEMETC, and in ae 
V. 2, SNET; yet both occur in the Memphitic version under the rms 
XEMC and SQNT. The word ovara is the same as ovor ; and Toz is used in 
the 'Fhebaic dialect for συνήϑεια, (Minter, Commentatio de indole version. N. T. 
Sahidice, p. 81.) For ῥίζα, i. e. ἀνθρώπων, in Isai. V. 24, the expression @ 
in the Memphitic 94MIO, is used, meaning πλάσμα; i. 6. simply the 
term instead of one highly figurative which cannot be made use of with propri- 
ty in every language. 
4 Zoega, Catalog. Codd. Sahid. n. CLXXII. 


244 ETHIOPIC VERSIONS. 


acter of the language supports this claim. It is as corrupt and as much 
mixed with Greek words, as we have seen the Thebaic version to be ; 
and in the case of the latter we regarded this characteristic as evidence 
of its antiquity. 

But here I cannot help doubting whether the third be really a dis- 
tinct version made from the original text. It follows the Thebaic ver- 
sion step by step and word for word, in such a manner that it would 
seem as if the latter was thankfully adopted as it was, and only tran- 
scribed into the third idiom. Whenever the Thebaic retains the Greek 
expression, this does so too; where the hebaic adopts a peculiar phra- 


seology, so does this: e.g. 1 Cor. 9: 15, xevwon, NAwTpPELwant 
EYCOVENT , Phil. 1: 10, ἀπρόσκοποι, ERLEN NORI ΧΙ 


ESOYN EPATTEN. Where it deviates for ἃ moment from the 
Thebaic reading, it is either from an error of the copyist (e. g. 1 Cor. 


9: 14,) or a gloss. (Heb. 7: 20. NAGAENES -) 


It would be almost wholly impracticable to compare these fragments 
with the Thebaic text, were it not for the facilities for the purpose fur- 
nished us by Engelbreth. He collected as many of the corresponding 
Thebaic passages as he could find in the Borgian Museum, and placed 
the third version by their side. We thus obtain the following passages, 
which are wanting in Woide: 1 Cor. 15: 5—53. Philipp. 1: 7—28. 
1 Thessal. 1: 4—3: 6. Heb. 9: 2—11. 9: 24—380. 10: 5—10. 


ETHIOPIC VERSION. 
§ 97. 


In the time of Constantine the Great, a merchant, or some inquisitive 
person belonging to Tyre, made a voyage to Ethiopia through the Red 
Sea. He and the whole ship’s company were murdered by the negroes, 
with the exception of two youths, Frumentius and Aidesius, who were 
carried to the king as slaves, and on account of their talents met with 
an agreeable lot at court. After the king’s death, during the . minority 
of his son and the regency of his mother, Frumentius endeavored to es- 
tablish in these regions the Christian religion, to which he adhered ; and 
when sure of success, took a journey to Alexandria to Athanasius, by 
whom he was consecrated bishop, invested with plenary authority and 
provided with assistants. 

This Frumentius is mentioned by Athanasius in his apology to the 
Emperor Constantius in which he complains that he had been persecu- 
ted even by letters tothe government of Ethiopia, and that Frumentius, ᾿ 
bishop of Axum, had been summoned to be indoctrinated in Arianism.* 


1 Ruffinus in the first book of his continuation of Eusebius’ Church history 
(which is called in some editions Eusebius’ 10th book,) 9th chap. Socrat. Hist. 
Eccl. L. I.c. 19. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. L. I. c. 23. Sozomen. L. II. c. 24. Abul- 
pharag. Hist. Dyn. p. 135. text. Arab. 

2 Athanas. Apol. ad Constant. c. 29. 


ETHIOPIC VERSION. 245 


He quotes a summons of this kind, in which Frumentius is suspect- 
ed of being an adherent to Athanasius, and is called upon to appear 
before George, patriarch of Egypt, and have his creed examined.! 

Cedrenus and Nicephorus Callistus, therefore, clearly erred in as- 
signing the foundation of Christianity in Ethiopia to the times of Jus- 
tinian,” and appear to have taken the mission of Nonnosus to Axum, 
which occurred under this emperor, for an attempt at conversion, although 
nothing is said of religious objects.® 

Now while Frumentius was prosecuting with so much vigor his pro- 
ject of converting the Abyssinians, he must have conceived the idea of 
a version of the sacred bouks in the language of the country, if not for 
the benefit of the people, at least for the use of those who were prepar- 
ing for the ministry. One alone could not have seemed sufficient for 
such an extensive territory, in which there was so great a variety of dia- 
lects. An Arabic writer, who saw a part of Abyssinia, reckons more 
than fifty varieties of language in the district of Zaila alone.* 

The Abyssinians mention with especial honor among their first 
preachers of Christianity, one Aba Salama ;° and it is to him that a na- 
tive poet and an Ethiopic martyrology ascribe the translation of the books 
of the Law and Gospel from the Arabic into the native language.6 Yet 
we must have great doubts as to the character of the original Arabic 
text, from which this version was made; or else the version we have 
cannot have been the work of a man so highly venerated among his 
countrymen. 

It is composed in the ancient dialect of Axum, which, when another 
dynasty from Sewa mounted the throne, was compelled to yield the 
palm to the Amharic dialect, the latter becoming the court language.7 
It was first published through the press at Rome, and afterwards reprint- 
ed in the English Polyglot.® 


1 Thid. 6. 31. 
2 Cedren. Annal. L. XVII. c. 32. Niceph. Hist. Eccles. L. VIII. c. 35. 


3 Photii Biblioth. Cod. 3. 


4 Macrizi Hist. regum Islamit. in Abyssinia, edit. Theodor. Rinck. Lugdun. 
Bat. p. 14. text. Arab. 
5 Jobi Ludolphi Hist. Athiop. L. III. c. 2. edit. Orig. 


6 Idem. Comment. in Hist. Ath. L. 1Π1.. c. 4. p.295. 
7 Idem. Hist. Hthiop. L. I. ¢. 15. 


8 In the year 1584 the first vol. appeared at Rome in 4to. containing the four 
Gospels, the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles, the Epistle of Paul to the He- 
brews, and lastly the Acts. Inthe following year, the remaining thirteen Pau- 
line Epistles appeared in a second volume. It is objected to this edition that it 
is anything but correct. Afterwards appeared separately: ‘ 8. Johannis Apos- 
toli et Evangelista Epistole Catholice tres, Arabice et JEthiopice, curd ac industria 
Jo. Georg. Nisselii et Theodori Petrai. Lugd. Bat. 1654.” 4to. and “ 8. Jude 
Apostoli Epistole Cathol. versio Arab. et Ethiop. a Jo. Georg. Nisselio et Theod. 
Petreo. Lugd. Bat. 1654.” 4to., in which there is said to be some amendment of 
the Ethiopic text. The whole N. T. appeared in 1657 in the London Polyglot, 
(for which a faulty and frequently illegible MS. was used,) on the whole no bet- 
ter than before, or,as Ludolf says: “retentis mendis veteribus et novis super- 
additis.’ The fidelity of the subjoined Latin version, likewise, is not much 
commended. 


246 ETHIOPIC VERSION. 


§ 98. 


The text of the four Gospels does not adhere constantly to any class 
of MSS. Sometimes it appears to agree with the Egyptian emendation ; 
then again with the Constantinopolitan ; frequently likewise with the 
third, which we have termed Origen’s edition. We find in it, how- 
ever, "readings of ancient date, which occur in Codex D, on the margin 
of the Philoxenian version, or in the Latin versions antecedent to Jerome. 
It would seem, therefore, "either that. several versions are combined in 
this one copy (which i is very possible, as the Abyssinian with whom Job 
Ludolf was acquainted remarked a great difference between our print- 
ed copies and the MS. ones of his own country); or else several MSS. 
of different Recensions were used in the composition of this version. 

It cannot be denied that two readings have frequently been united in- 
to one ; as in Luke 6: 48, where some : MSS. after σαλεῦσαι αὐτήν read 
διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσϑαι αὐτήν, instead of τεϑεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ. 
πέτραν, and others τεϑεμέλίωτο, γὰρ καλῶς, and this version unites the 
two thus, τεϑεμελίωτο yao καλῶς, διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι αὐτήν. 
In Luke 9: 4, some MSS. read instead of καὶ ἐχεῖϑεν ἐξέρχεσϑε the 
opposite καὶ ἐκεῖθεν μὴ ἐξέρχεσϑε, others ἕως ἐξέρχεσϑε; and the 
Ethiopic, καὶ ἐκεῖϑεν μη ἐξέρχεσϑε, ἕως ἐξέρχεσϑε. In Luke 9: 35, 
the Constantinopolitan MSS. have ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς and the Egyp- 
tian ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος ; the version has both, In Luke 11: 18, 
some MSS. have the reading ἀγαϑὸν δόμα for πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and the 
Ethiopic version has ἀγαϑὸν δόμα, πνεύματος ἃ aytov. In John 6: 69, 
the Egyptian Recension has OU εἶ ὃ ἅγιος τοῦ ϑεοῦ; the Constantino- 
politan, OU. εἰ 0 Χριστὸς: 0 υἱὸς τοὺ ϑεοῦ ζῶντος ; the Ethiopie,s σὺ εἶ ὁ 
«Χριστὸς, 0 ἅγιος υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ ζῶντος. In John 12: 28, δόξασόν σου 
τὸ ὄνομα, some MSS. read δύξασόν σου τὸν υἱὸν ; this version, δόξα-- 
σόν σου τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὸν υἱόν, etc. I trust there is no need of ac- 
cumulating further proofs, to convince us that the text of the Gospels is 
derived from various constituent sources. 

The editors were least successful in respect to the book of Acts. 
They possessed only a very imperfect copy of it, and were frequently 
obliged to translate into Ethiopic themselves in order to supply deficien- 
cies. This they generally did from the Vulgate; and of this fact they 
make no secret. In the preface to the Acts they say: ‘‘Ista acta aposto- 
lorum mazimam partem Rome translata sunt e lingué Latiné et Graca 
in Adthiopicam propter defectum protographi.” 

That the translator of the Gospels had a Greek MS. before him is 
clear from the mistakes and misapprehensions which we find. In Matt. 
4: 13, he took ἐν ὁρίοις for ὁ ὄρεσι or ἐν ὄρει, on mount Zebulon ; in Mark 
2: 23, he interprets the phrase ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, to ride, instead of to go on 
foot; ἀποδοκεμάζειν, in Mark 8: 31, he regards as synonymous with 
δοκιμάζειν; the word ἐφημερία he could not comprehend, but, trans- 
lates ἐξ ἐφημερίας "Ape, in Mark 1: 5, as though it meant ἐν ἡμέραις 
* Acc, and in the Sth verse has entirely ‘omitted it. 

The Epistles of Paul were translated from a Greek original, as I in- 


1 Walton, Proleg. XV. Ludolph. Comm. in Hist. #th. L. III. c. 4. p. 297. 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 247 


fer from a very ludicrous mistake in the version. In 1 Cor. 12: 28, the 
words καὶ οὖς μὲν ἔϑετο are réndered thus: ‘‘ God set an ear in the 
church etc., which rendering originated in a misconception of the little 
word οὕς. 

The text of these, however, as well as of the Catholic Epistles, ad- 
heres with tolerable exactness to the Egyptian Recension, as might be 
expected from the situation of the country and its ecclesiastical rela- 
tions. 

The Apocalypse, likewise, adheres to the same Recension. This ver- 
sion, venerable for its antiquity, and valuable on account of the text 
which it follows, certainly merits greater attention than has been devo- 
ted to it, and ought to be published anew in an edition founded on good 
MSS. Such a work might with peculiar propriety occupy the attention 
of the British Bible Society. 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 


§ 99. 


In the 96th year of the Hegira, the 718th of the Christian era, at the 
death of Alwalid the son of Abdolmelek, the Arabs had already con- 
quered the East, subjected Egypt and the whole northern coastof Afri- 
ca to their sway, and founded a kingdom in Spain. Their language 
extended itself with their victories into all the three quarters of the 
globe. 

The Christians in Asia and Africa who held the creed of the Nestori- 
ans and Monophysites, were treated under the dominion of the Caliphs 
with less severity than their brethren. Both these sects retained their 
patriarchs, one of whom had his seat at Antioch, and the other, as head 
of the churches of Egypt and Africa, at Alexandria. In Spain the 
Arabic supremacy did indeed cause some changes, but without on the 
whole doing much injury to Christianity. 

In proportion as the language of the conquerors gained universal cur- 
rency, the necessity among Christians of Arabic versions of the Sacred 
Scriptures became more urgent. In particular Alwalid Ben Abdol- 
melek added to this necessity, by prohibiting Christians from using any 
other tongue but the Arabic in all public transactions of business. 


Latino-Arabic Version. 


§ 100. 


The natural consequence was soon seen. Alwalid had not been long 
dead, when, about the middle of the 8th century, in Spain, the sacred 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were translated into Arabic. 
Of this version only, among all the Arabic versions, do we know the 


1 Gregor. Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. Dyn. VII. p. 201. Arabic text. 


248 ARABIC VERSIONS. 


age and the author. It was John, Bishop of Seville, who, when the 
Latin language was constantly falling more and more into disuse, exe- 
cuted this version for the benefit of Christians, and also, as he trusted, 
-of the Moors.! It was made, as we should expect, from the Latin, and 
from the text of Jerome, which, in the 7th century, had become gener- 
ally current in Spain. ‘The use, therefore, which could have been made 
of it in criticism, must have consisted chiefly in consulting it for the 
purpose of restoring the text of Jerome’s edition. The Jesuit Mariana 
saw many MS. copies of it in his time. 


Arabic Version from the Syriac. 
§ 101. 


The Syrians under the patriarchate of Antioch felt equal need of 
an Arabic version. One was executed from the Peschito. ‘Thomas 
Von Erpe has published the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Cath- 
olic Epistles, according to this version, in his Arabic edition of the New 
Testament.2 His MS. contained a different text of the Gospels. 

The text of the Acts bears the most manifest marks of its origin. In 
Acts 1: 1, τὸν μὲν πρῶτον Aoyov ἐποιήσαμεν is translated by the Pes- 


chito— ods 14,6 Joo, and by Arab. Erp. Gigi OS 
Ya! sx ;--καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφϑαλμῶν αὐ- 
a oe Y e 00 ¥ 
τῶν, (Acts 1:9,) ϑσιλτως «Ὁ «οὐ Ζῖο ol sas faaso ,— 
j AC fa AS οὖ Ϊ Σ 3 % slot BAAS .-- -χαὶ ἰδοὺ 
ΣΟ ΟΝ 2 
avdoss Ovo, (Acts 1: 10,) PEAQ «2 Qnole| j—Ads 


1 Mariana de Reb. Hispan. L. VII. c. 3. ‘Joannes Hispalensis presul di- 
vinos libros lingua Arabica donabat utriusque nationis saluti consulens: quoni- 
am Arabice lingue multus usus erat Christianis eque atque Mauris; Latina 
passim ignorabatur. Ejus interpretationis exempla ad nostram etatem conservata 
sunt ; extantque non uno in loco in Hispanis.”’ 


2 He published it from a MS. in the Library at Leyden, ‘ex elegantissimo bib- 
liothece nostre codice, manu exarato in monasterio S. Joannis, in Thebaidos de- 
serto, anno ere Diocletiani ... . 1059 id est Christi 1342." He obtained, 
moreover, from Francis Raphelung a collation of the Acts and Epistles in anoth- 


er MS. The following work first appeared as a kind of experiment: ‘ Pauli 


Apostoliad Romanos Epistola Arabice. Ex Bibliotheca Leidensi. Leide in 
Typographia Erpeniana ling. Orient. 1615.”’ 4to. Though not mentioned on the 
title-page, the Epistle to the Galatians was published with it. In the following 
year the whole New Testament appeared: “ Novum D.N. J. Christi Testam. 
Arabice ex bibliothecd Leidensi, edente Thoma Erpenio. Leide in Typogr. ling. 
Orient.”’ A. 1616. 4to. The MS. of which Raphelung communicated a collation 
was probably the same as that from which the Epistle to Titus was printed at 
the Raphelengian press. ‘‘ Ὁ. Pauli Apost. Epist. ad Titum Arabice : cum Joann. 
Antonide Alemariani interlineari versione Lat. ad verbum ex officind Plantini- 
ana Raphelengii. 1612.” 4. This text is, like the Erpenian, from the Syriac. 
The editor derived it from a transcript of an Oxford Codex, made, as he states 
in the preface, by Joseph Abudacni. 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 249 


ap ΒΗ. gor ἐγγύς, (1: 12,) he Ws esonoLah 
srl «ἢ 2550 .---Οὄχλος ὀνομάτων, (1: 15,) fast |a12— 

Υ ; 4 Σ ~ 07 yoy 
ULI (JRE; ;- καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος, (1:18,) aca} “Naso 
iss] pe (sae ae, oe Ἐ κω; 3 τῇ ἰδίᾳ 
διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν, (1: 19,) 52]: areso—_.} df ἃς. 5.λ9 


ANAS; τοῦτ᾽ ας ΞΖ ὡσιοδο]» —— BAD ‘S Coa. 


These examples taken from the first chapter will suffice ; for it is not 
necessary to read and collect with care passages thinly scattered about, 
to prove how precisely every minute turn of expression in the Peschito 
is rendered in the Arabic text. 

The case is the same, too, with the Epistles of Paul. We will quote 
merely a few expressions from the commencement of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, in proof of this: τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, (1: 3,) 


or. S60 = AD KG Les Sg RS -3;— 0 ἑαυτοῦ καϑαρ. 


οὐ U0A1AS__bwvy iSls—ov ἀγγέλων, (2: 2,) LalSso pole 
ἈΠ ΛΩΝ SArsl os —xal πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παρακοὴ ἕλα- 
βεν ἔνδικον μισϑαποδοσίαν---δειὸ Lass ἘΠῚ σιδιλο 2) \50 


jZdstas fisias —Ussyc Lalasig ἰάκωω a ὁ-559 
Jr; — τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας, (2: 8,) {oss a 
ares cal < “2.2019 Las] Ws — sf poss Lagl gs wf 
isla Cs; -- χατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν, (2: 4 ))α.--Ὡσι.-α2) 


nm 


ALD, al — Kinin So Legis cst ---διεμαρτύρατό 
που τίς, (2: vie Birt orm’ ak {a} ___ ng Lia 
LST ; 9 


There are also, as we might expect, evidences that the translator 
used Nestorian manuscripts.! 

The Epistle of James, the Ist of Peter and John, likewise conform 
to the Peschito. But the text of the other Catholic Epistles i in the Pe- 
schito, the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, and that of Jude, which 
were derived from another source, bears little or no resemblance to the 
Arabic of Erpenius. E. g., it is ἃ peculiarity of the Syriac that in the 
Epistle of Jude, v. 6, it renders δεσμοῖς αἰδίοις by unknown chains ; that 
in v. 12, it reads ἀργίαις instead of ἀγάπαις (API/ALS-ATAITALS), 
and takes ἐκριζωϑέντα to signify trees sprouting from the roots. Now 
of these and other peculiarities there is no trace in the Arabic version. 


* Adler, N. T. ἀρᾷ Syriace, Simplex, etc. denuo examinate, L. I. p. 36, 37, 
3 


250° ARABIC VERSIONS. 


I find in this Epistle but one instance in which they agree in an un- 
usual reading. Both change ἐξεχύϑησαν (v. 11) into ἐξεκαύϑησαν. 
I have also observed in these versions, throughout the 2d of Peter and 
2d and 3d of John, a striking independence of each other, and but few 
instances of resemblance ; and these few may have arisen from a third 
Syriac text with which both translators were acquainted, or from some 
gloss, several having crept into the MS. of Erpenius. 

Yet, in these portions of the New Testament, the Arabic text of Er- 
penius departs so far from the strict sense of the Greek, that we must 
admit that the translator saw the Greek dialect only through some 
medium, and consequently has given its meaning with less force and 
exactness. It is probable, therefore, that the Epistles in question were 
translated into the Arabic from some Syriac version hitherto undis- 
covered.! 

The Apocalypse in the Erpenian edition is an essentially different 
version from that in the Polyglot ; yet such resemblances are sometimes 
found between the two that we cannot: but suppose one of the two trans- 
lators to have been acquainted with the work of the other. The Syriac 
Apocalypse, which is found at the end of the Peschito, was not the 
source whence this Arabic version was derived. ‘Thus much we read- 
ily perceive from comparison; but it is not so easy to name the real 
source. 


§ 102. 


We have hitherto avoided speaking of the four Gospels, not in order 
to get rid of the subject entirely, but to devote attention to it in a more 
convenient place. Erpenius, as we have said, had a peculiar text of 
the Gospels in his MS., which was by no means derived from the old 
Syriac version. They were translated, as the subscription at the end 
of them testifies, from the Coptic; or rather they were amended by a 
Copt, named Nesiulaman, the son of Azalkefat. 

It may be regarded as accidental that the Gospels according to anoth- 
er version were appended to this Syriaco-Arabic New Testament ; but it 
is worthy of remark that an Arabic MS. of the New Testament, Cod. Or. 
n. 43 in the Royal Library at Vienna, the Epistles in which were, as 
the fragments remaining evince, translated from the Peschito, contains 
the Gospels, not according to the Syriac, but exactly like those which 
Erpenius found in his Leyden Codex. 

A Paris MS. exhibits to us the old Syriac text of the Gospels with an 
Arabic version by its side. Here we might reasonably expect to find 
an Arabic translation from the Peschito. The learned man who has 
discussed and accurately described this document,” did indeed, at first, 
believe that he had discovered an Arabic version which was essentially 
different from the preceding, but on closer examination abandoned this 


1 This text of the Catholic Epistles was reprinted in ‘‘ Johannis Epist. Cath- 
olie., Arab. et Athiop. Lugd. Bat. 1654. 4to. ‘ Jacobi Epistola Arab. et Athiop.”’ 
and “ Jude Ep. Arab. Aithiop.” in the same year and at the same place. ‘Comp. 
Schnurrer, Biblioth. Arab. P. VI. p. 26. 


3 Gottlob Christ. Storr, Observ. super N. T. versionibus Syriac. Stuttgart, 1772. 
8vo. P. I. ὃ 12. p. 21. 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 261 


position, and afterwards announced that these Gospels differed but 
slightly and accidentally from the printed text.! 

These facts cannot at least be considered as presaging the supposed 
existence of an Arabic version of the Gospels from the Syriac text ; and 
I do not believe that any such ever existed.” 

I am confirmed in this, particularly, by the Carshuni New Testa- 
ment. It is well known that the Syrians retained very long their na- 
tional alphabet, or rather that they did not adopt the alterations which 
its characters underwent in the hands of the Arabians. Though for a 
long time they read the Bible in the Arabic version, they always wrote 
it in Syriac letters, like their other church-documents, and many even 
yet adhere to this custom. Sach MSS. are called, howsoever the term 
may have originated, Carshuni. 

Now ifthe Syriac Church ever possessed an Arabic version of their 
own of the Gospels, we should expect to find it in MSS. written in their 
church-characters and appearing as church-documents. Whoever, 
with this view, opens the Carshuni New Testament, which was printed 
at the Propaganda-press in Rome for the use of the Maronites,® must be 
very much surprised to find in it the text of Erpenius; and yet it is 
really so, as I have satisfied myself by a comparison of several chapters 
of Mark. 

The MS. which the editors followed was brought from the island 
of Cyprus to Rome by Michael Metoscita. They had, as they say in 
their preface, several MSS. at hand, but gave the preference to this on 
account of its accuracy.! It seems that nearly a hundred years before, 
the excellent John Baptist Raimundi determined to publish a Carshuni 
New Testament. He went so far as to write outa fair copy of it from 
three MSS. which were in the college of the Maronites. ‘These pre- 
parations, together with the MSS. themselves which were the basis of 
them, were undoubtedly in the possession of those to whom the Propa- 
ganda entrusted the business.° 


1 sik Dissert. Inaug. Crit. de Evangeliis Arabicis. Tubinge. 1770. 4to. ὃ 26. 
. 37. 

2 Richard-Simon (Hist. Crit. des versions du N. T. Chap. 18,) gives us an 
account of a Syriac and Arabic MS. of the four Gospels, in the Library of the 
King of France, marked 285. Cod. Syr. ‘ But,” says he, “ the copyist transcri- 
bed only a few chapters of the Arabic, in the beginning.”” The Syriac Gospels 
with the number mentioned are yet in the Royal Library, and are marked ac- 
cording to the new arrangement, Codd. Syr.n. 16. But there is no appearance 
in the MS. ofan Arabic version. There is, indeed, prefixed in the Arabic lan- 
guage, an account of the revision of the MS. in 1671, by one Peter of Aleppo; 
and Simon seems to have hastily taken this for the Arabic, “ vis-a-vis des pre- 
miéres sections” of the Syriac text. 


3 This book was described above among the editions of the Peschito (N. 15). I 
first saw it in the Royal Library at Vienna, and afterwards procured it at Rome. 
One column of each page contains the text of the Peschito; the other the 
Carshuni. It isclear that it exhibits in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, 
the Arabic version made from the Syriac. Even in the 2d of Peter, 2d and 3d of 
John, and the Epistle of Jude, the text agrees with the Erpenian, as also in the 
Apocalypse, though here there are more frequent variations. 


4 Prefat.ad N. T. Carsh. “ Et hance (versionem), que in presenti Syriacis char- 
acteribus in lucem prodit, Romam detulit ex Cypri insula Michael Metoscita, 
que ceteris, quas pre manibus habuimus, correctior est, et emendatior.” 

5 Lami, De-eruditione Apostolorum. P. If. Sect. III. § 1. p. 883—885. 


6 ‘a 


. 
‘ ¢- 
ern 


252 ARABIC VERSIONS. 
\ 

This induction, I conceive, is sufficient to justify me in positively de- 
nying the existence of an Arabic version of the Gospels from the Pe- 
schito. The very fact which will probably be objected against me, favors 
my position. In the Library at Leyden is a Codex, containing the 
commentaries of Abulpharagius A bdallaz-Ben-al-Thib on Matthew. The 
text of Matthew, on which the commentary is composed, is certainly a 
translation from the Syriac; and therefore here is an Arabic Gospel 
according to the Peschito. True; but the learned man who, in par- 
ticular, informs us of this fact, likewise informs us that this version, as 
is evident from its character and from the commentary which accom- 


"panies it, was composed by the commentator himself, who lived in the 


11th century. Till this period, then, there were no Arabic Gospels 
from the Syriac in existence; for otherwise the commentator would not 
have thought it necessary to compose a translation himself." 


ue 
ἡ ων 
af ἣ δ Arabic Version from the Coptic. 
“ἀν ας § 103. 


The Christians under the patriarchate of Alexandria, like their breth- 
ren in other countries, when they felt the want of an Arabic version of 
the Bible, made one from their old church-version. In many libraries 
are found Coptic MSS. with an Arabic version by their side. 

I once had an opportunity of examining one of the finest of them cer- 
tainly, containing the four Gospels. It has gone with other literary 
treasures from Rome to Paris, where it now is. It was formerly Vati- 
canus Codex Copt. Arab. No.9, on cotton paper, in folio. The Coptic 
text, properly speaking, occupies the page ; the Arabic is only permitted 
to occupy a small column at the side. The title-page is splendid, dec- 


orated with gold letters and embellishments. The initial letters too, 


throughout, are of gold, and ingeniously executed. A note subjoined 
makes grateful mention of its owner, who presented it to the Vatican 
Library: “Jo. Bapt. Raymundus Bibliothece Vaticane dono dedit ex 
testamento A. 1614.” 

This Arabic version likewise of the Gospels is not essentially differ- 
ent from the text of Erpenius. I have made a comparison as to a few 
chapters in Luke, and perceive that all their variations from each other 
are merely various readings of one and the same version. 

But the Epistles of Paul are in a peculiar version, different from any 
now known. I discovered this from the beautiful Coptico-Arabic MS. in 
the French Library, Wo. 17, formerly Cod. 332. Epist. Paul. Copt. 
Arab., on cotton paper in folio. For proof of this I will here present 
the first eleven verses of the Epistle to Philemon ; an acceptable pres- 
ent, I trust, to the friends of biblical literature, which may convince 
them of the truth of my assertion. 


} Gottl. Chr. Storr, Dissert. inaugural. crit. de Evang. Arab. ὃ 34. p. 43, 44. 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 253 


ἜΣ vate Srameall E ganas prmil uly? cre 
ae sat Ny 2 Avs) 3 US sity Vana> a 
3: earns pei RIE 3 US Urgdacesl ἴω 
es Vasp (pes Vaal all CM Kovlusl as Re ΧΙ; 


SAD me JSd csQu Caf Uf 4. ΩΣ 
ἴδιο, οἴ χαξειο jo (2p eat Jf 5. csilgloo 1B 


6. prebsi RAr> ἘΣ ctu] E κω Ge Ce) «Ἢ BAD 
ΩΣ ὁξϑ KS πο 3 jos  χολοί bt (yg sO 
ois 6 ὃ XS ἘΝ a: pwaadt (ἢ Vins cs Exes ι 
Ceres (0 cl; χωΐ Ve (ces ‘eS Cee ies tcf 
Or S\s pire νοὶ «Ἷ RES je) Cp 8. oul \gsf , 
oat Rassrall ug wpe’ 9. ett) Nas & ae wl 
sels ai Ἦν δ fag als \f 19 COS ΟΜ] 
Sot ΤᾺ 11. apenas Gen ἘῚ ΤΣ wey 

NTs sxsls , My Ulo- Cerene pet IS 


This version, which, like the age was not made from the 
Greek, can never be used in deciding as to readings of the latter; but, 
as it is superfluous to remind the critic, it can only serve to aid a de- 
cision in doubtful cases as to the readings of the Coptic text, in like 
manner as the Syro-Arabic may in regard to readings of the Peschito. 
To a person who should undertake a critical investigation and a new 
edition of the Peschito, or of the Coptic versions, both of these Arabic 
translations would be of great service. 


ν. 2. Other MSS. ἀγαπητῇ 3; but ADEFG and Copt. ἀδελφῇ. 

v. 6. Other MSS. ἐν ὑμῖν ; but AC and Vat. 1210, ἐν ἡμῖν. The word 
*Inoovr is omitted, as in AC, and Copt. 

v. 7. χαράν, AC and Copt. Other MSS. χάριν. 


254 ARABIC VERSIONS. ὰ 


Further Investigation of the Gospels in particular. 


§ 104. 


That the Syrians had no other Arabic Gospels than those which Er- 
penius has published, we have proved by many arguments. But these 
same were current among the Copts, as we learn from the Vatican MS. 
The very MS. followed by Erpenius had in reality been revised by a 
Copt, as is shown by the subscription at the end of the Gospels which 
runs thus: “ Absoluta est hujus libri descriptio die 16 mensis Baune, 
anni nongentesimi octogesimi octavi martyrum justorum. Descriptus 
autem est codex ex emendatissimo exemplari, cujus descriptor ait, seid 
descripsisse ex alio exemplari emendato, exarato manu Johannis Epis- 
copi Cophtite; qui Johannes dicit, se suum descripsisse ex evens 
emendatissimo, quod ediderat D. Nesiulaman F. Azelkefati.” 

And yet these Gospels were not translated either from the Copiie: or 
Syriac, but from the Greek. This can be seen in part from the order 
of the words, which was retained like that of the Greek so far as pos- 
sible, even in such constructions and transpositions of words as violate 
the rules of Arabic syntax. It may be seen further from the etymolo- 
gies which the author too anxiously strove toexhibit: e. g. in the word 
τετράρχης, which has a peculiarly bad effect in. Luke 3: 1; διχοτομή- 
EL, Matt. 24:51; ὑπερηφανία, Mark 7: 22; εὐσχήμων, Mark 15: 43 ; 
συμφωνία, Luke 15: 25 ; πολιτής, Luke 15: 15 ; which the translator 


derived from πολὺς and rendered aidac. It is further proved 


erroneous divisions of words, mistaken separations of the clause ᾿ ᾿ 
changes of expressions: 6. g. Matt. 22: 4, where the author read AA 
TASIT/ZTA continuously thus: KATAL/T/ZTO/; Mark 4: 


where he separated L/ZIIOPEYTOMENOT into ΟἿΣ or set 


TIOPETOMEN O1; Matt. 20: 21, where he made the construction to be 
δοῦλε ἀγαϑὲ, καὶ πιστὸς ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἧς, πιστὸν ἐπὶ πολλῶν σε κατασ- 
τήσω; and Matt. 23: 24, where he mistook J/YA/ZONTES τὸν 
xevena for ALAAIION TES. 

This version of the Gospels from the Greek was, as we have seen, 
adopted by the Syrians as their church-version, and for this purpose al- 
tered to such a degree of conformity with their ancient church-version, 
the Peschito, that it might appear in MSS. by its side and be consider- 
ed as a Syro-Arabic text. 

It met with similar honour and similar fortune among the Copts. It 
was modified according to their ancient church-version so as not to dif- 
fer, at least strikingly, from the readings and peculiarities of the lat- 
ter. 

Who it was that regulated the Arabico-Coptic text we know not. 
Perhaps it was Nesiulaman, the son of Azalkefat, whose merits in rela- 
tion to the text in Egypt were better known formerly than now, when 
we have only very indefinite information respecting him from the sub- 


σὴν». 


a ARABIC VERSIONS. 255 


scription to the Leyden Codex. With respect to the Arabico-Syriac 
Gospels, there is or was current among the Syrians an account, which at 
any rate serves to show when the want of them was felt. _ John, patri- 
arch of the Jacobites, is said to have been urged, about the year 640 of 
our reckoning, even by an Arabian magistrate of the province, to trans- 
late the four Gospels from the Syriac into Arabic.! Hence the alfera- 
tion of these Gospels according to the Peschito may have been made 
under this patriarch. ᾿ : 

Now, as neither church made a version of its own of the Gospels, 
but merely altered and accommodated one already in existence made 
from the Greek, so asto make it correspond with the Coptic and Syriac 
versions and proper to be placed by their side, it is clear that these Ara- 
bic Gospels must have been of more ancient origin, long previously held 
in regard and esteem. 

These ancient Gospels, which were executed from a Greek copy, were 
(difficult as it is in the present state to determine definitely what Recen- 
sion they follow) certainly not derived from a MS. of the Hesychian or 
Egyptian text. So much can be asserted with safety from a general in- 
vestigation of them. Yet Arabia proper, Djezirat al Arab, is said to 
have received its MSS. together with Christianity from Egypt. 

We are therefore led to seek for the origin of this version, or its pri- 
meval seat, out of the Arabian peninsula ; viz. among those Arabs who 
lived under petty princes in the south east and north east of Palestine. 
These Saracens, as they are called by the Greek writers, were pre- 
vailed upon by Greek negotiations, on occasion of a war under Valens 
in the last half of the fourth century, to embrace Christianity.2 The 
Christian teachers now certainly had need of Arabic Gospels, and they 
were translated from Constantinopolitan or Palestinian MSS., which are 

cups of the text we are discussing. 

___ Whether my hypotheses as to the time and place when and where 
these Gospels originated be adopted or rejected, it must at any rate be 
conceded that they were in existence when the Syrians and Copts be- 

_ gan to feel the want of an Arabic version of the Bible. If Iam asked 
why these two churches did not proceed in the same way as to the oth- 
er books of the New Testament, and accommodate an older Arabic 
version of the Acts and Epistles, likewise, to the Peschito or the Coptic 
text, of several replies I might make the shortest, viz. that only the Gos- 
pels had been translated. I might reply too, that the two facts really ex- 
ist together and are correct, whether all the questions which may be 
raised respecting them can be answered or not. 


1 Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Tom. III. P. 11. p. 599. 
2 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. ΠΥ. 36. Theodoret. H. Eccl. IV. 23. Sozomen. VI. 39. 


256 ye 


_ ARABIC VERSIONS. & 
εἶ ν 


᾿ 
Mistory of the text of these Gospels. 


§ 105. 


In this way originated three different classes of MSS. of the Gospels 
containing at bottom one and the same version. This circumstance was 
detrimental to the text. The copyists, who were obliged in the Arabic 
more than any other language to collate several copies, gradually con- 
founded the three. They naturally did not scruple to amend one MS. 
from another, or to transfer readings from one to another, as they per- 
ceived in the main buta single version. Hencearosé by degrees a mix- 
ed text. 1 

_This happened especially in the book of Matthew; for in the begi 
ning of their work the ardor of the copyists was greatest. The MS Ἂν 
lowed by the Roman edition of 1591 deviated most from the Leyden 
Codex and the others which Erpenius used in the first thirteen chapters 
of Matthew, as he observes in the Preface to his New Testament. I 
have in my own possession a very neat MS. of the Arabic Gospels in 
16mo. which, even some chapters further onward in this Evangelist, con- 
tinues to vary in a marked manner from the Erpenian text. 

_ AMS. of the Gospels, marked No. XX VII in the Library of France, 
in large octavo, deviates further from the Erpenian text in some chapters 
of Matthew which I have compared than in Luke. It is, however, re- 
markable in this respect, that it attests the procedure of the Arabic copy- 
ists and the want of consideration with which they have confounded dif- 
ferent texts. In a postscript at the end the copyist says, that he presents 
a MS. amended and improved by a collation of the best Syriac, 
he ‘Romaic, and Arabic copies. His words are : Bp Ww &S 
ἘΠ ὮΝ 


= 


“ἢ ole 8py du Sf email} Cy Split OKs Bas Se . 


He then—etc. δον G3 λο ἰρὰν Kissy ἄλσξειλο oe | le 


confirms his declaration by examples which it is not necessary to quote. 

This procedure is clearly shown in a MS. in the Royal Library at 
Vienna, Codd. Or. N. 43, which seems to have once comprised the 
whole New Testament, of which, however, besides the Gospels, only a 
few fragments of the two Epistles to the Corinthians remain. Lambec- 
cius has criticised it in the first book of his commentary under the num- 
ber 34; and from this Peter Kirsten compiled his ‘‘ Note in Evangelium 
Matthezi, Bresle 1611.” 

The Gospels of this MS. are filled over the lines and in the margin 
with numerous readings, the sources of which are usually pointed out 
thus—such a MS.—or, in red ink, the Coptic, the Syriac, the Ro- 
man. It is uncertain whether Greek or Latin MSS. are meant by the 


2 ἊΝ 


: ARABIC VERSIONS. | 257. 
last denomination. With these, there is almost always a diacritical 
sign which refers these notes to the word or passage to which they relate. 
But the value of this precious MS. does not consist merely in evincing 
the endeavor of the copyist to draw together readings from various cop- 
ies, and supply his less discreet brethren with extremely heterogeneous 
materials, which they often afterwards smelted into one mass. Its pe- 
culiar value consists in the aid it will furnish any one who may 
hereafter undertake to extricate the ancient Arabic Gospels from their 
present involved condition, free them from every thing foreign, and re- 
store them to their original state. In such an irksome task, this MS. 
will serve to distinguish the foreign additions, to designate their origin, 
and guide the procedure of the critic. 

For this use, moreover, a MS. in the Library ala Minerva (N. IV. 
191) at Rome would seem to be adapted ; for its postscript boasts that 
it was corrected from one of the purest and best copies, and begs and 
beseeches the reader not to permit any change in the reading.' 


EDITIONS OF THE GOSPELS. 


§ 106. 


We have mentioned as yet no text of the Gospels but the Erpenian ; 
they were printed, however, still earlier at Rome, (in 1590,) we know 
not from what MS., with the title: “‘ Zvangelium sanctum Domini nos- 
tri Jesu Christi conscriptum a quatuor Evangelistis sanctis, id est, 
a Mattheo, Marco, Luca, et Johunne. Romein typograph. Medicea. 
MDXC.” fol. At the end is the date MDXCI. In the same year 
they appeared again from the same press with an interlineary Latin text ; 
sie δορίος with the title, ‘Sanctum Dei Evangelium Arab. Lat.,” and 
me without any title. On the last page but one the printer ( T'ypo- 
raphus lectori,) gives an account of the amendments made by him in 

dition. Beneath this stand the words: ‘‘ Rome in ‘Typogr. Med- 
DXCI.” In 1619, this edition, provided with a new title, was 
sold as a new work; and in 1774 again a second time.” 

In 1645 the Gospels were inserted in the Paris Polyglot, from the sec- 
ond Roman edition, with some alterations by Sionita. 

Walton, according to his own admission, took the text contained in 
the 5th volume of the London Polyglot from the Paris Polyglot.‘ 

In accordance with this derivation of the editions, we have properly 


1 J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise. p. 133, 134. 


2 Ahistory and description of this edition is carefully given in Chr. Frid. 
Schnurrer’s ‘“ Biblioth. Arab. P. VI. Tubing. 1805.”’ 4to. and afterwards in 
his πω complete work, #‘Biblioth. Arabica. Hale. 1811.’’ 8vo. Class. V. 
n. 31 


3 This we learn partly from the printer of this Polyglot, “6 scripto Antonii 
Vitre in Gabrielem Sionitam anno 1640. Parisiis excuso,” (from which Le Lon 
made extracts in his description of the Polyglot,) and partly from Rich. Simon's 
Hist. Crit. des Vers. du N.T. α. 8. j 

4 Walton's Proleg. V. § 4. n.9. XIV. ὃ 17. p. 35, 56. 

33 


ie. 


La aa 


4 


258 ARABIC VERSIONS. 


but three principal impressions taken immediately from MSS.; viz. 
the Roman, the Erpenian and the Carshuni. We were first informed 
of the agreement between the Roman and Erpenian text by alittle essay 
which has contributed much to a better acquaintance with the Arabic 
Gospels. 


§ 107. 


We have lately come to the knowledge of an Arabic version of the 
Gospels and Pauline Epistles, and in fact (although on this point the ac- 
count is not sufficiently clear,) of the whole New Testament, made from 
the Greek.2 Thisversion (Cod. Vatic. Arab. 13,) stands, in a philolog- 
ical point of view, far below those before known. In observing the 
plan on which its author proceeded, we cannot estimate the value of 
this work very highly. He frequently omits at pleasure one and even 
several words; adds, likewise, one or more words without scruple ; and 
sometimes deviates into unnecessary circumlocutions. The last case 
occurs in the Gospels more frequently than in the Epistles ; and on this 
account the latter are of most critical value. The passages, Matt. 13: 
1—22, Mark 5: 20—28, and the Epistle to Philemon, which, with some 
others, are presented us as specimens, afford proof of this. ΗΝ 
The additions we will designate by ahyphen. Matt. 19: 7, ἀκανϑαι- 
περὶ αὐτὰ. 8, xa9n0v-xadov. 18, οὐ βλέπουσι-καὶ συνιοῦσι. 15,700 λαοῦ 
τουτου-οὐδὲ ἀκούσουσι τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν. 19, ἐσπαρμένον-λόγον. 90, 
τὸν λόγον ἀκουων-ὅταν αὐτὸν ἀχούσῃ. Mark ὅ: 30, καὶ πάντες- 
οἱ ἀχούοντες ταῦτα. Philemon 1: 1, ἀγαπητῴ-τέκνῳ. 22, ἅμα- 
ἔγραψα σοι. He omits ἔρχεται in Matt. 13:2, unless, KS (perhaps, 


it should be ΧΆ) be meant for it. In Mark ὅ: 21, he overlooked 


' > ba) , - -* ἃ 

nahi εἰς τὸ πέραν; v. 23, πολλὰ is not expressed. Phil. v. 6, tou 
can Cc wit. a > ’ ~ . 

ἐν ἡμῖν or ὑμῖν is wanting; v. 10, ἔμου τέκνου is omitted ; and y. 22, 
eo eS : 

ἐτοίμαξέ μοι ξενίαν likewise. There are the following unnecessary 


circumlocutions in Mark 5:28; for xai παρέχαλει, uhbs =u 
Lins Lib salt and for ἐσχάτως ἔχει, Med BAIA tad 
ὌΝ fae os al XS διάβασιν. 

Several words are twice translated, unless they have been added as in- 
terpolations. Matt. 13:5, καὶ ἐξανέτειλε δι", and ees (rather 


poo: )14, συνῆτε Wg QRRs and 5 Sha; ἴδητε, (9 toad and 
(ghey: 20, μετὰ χαρᾶς, rm pa and ς δ: Mark 5: 20, Rive and 


1 Dissert. Inaug. Crit. de Evangeliis Arabicis. “ Auct. Gottl. Christ. Storr. 
Tubinge 1775. 4to. 

2 Dr. J. M. Augustin Scholz, “Biblisch-Kritische Reise. Leipz. 1823. p. 117— 
126. The Greek postscript to the version, of which we shall speak hereafter, 
mentions the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, seven Catholic, and four- 
teen Pauline Epistles. The Apocalypse is not mentioned. 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 259 
‘yf. Philem. 21, ὑπὲρ 0, asl and XS . 22, ἐλπίζω .... χα- 


τον sgl Wl 9; >f (probably real CA yl] 
acl. 

soe Scholz, who brought to light the existence of this version, and 
has presented to the public some passages from it, reckons it among the 
MSS. of the Constantinopolitan text, and perceives no trace of Egyp- 
tian relationship in it. For some reason or other, the proofs which he 
selects from the passages presented sustain precisely the contrary. In 
Mark 5: 22, it omits ἰδού, as do BDL, Copt., while all the Constantino- 
politan MSS. read it. In Luke 4: 8, it wants, with BDL, Copt., ὕπαγε 
ὀπίσω μου, Satava, differing from the Constantinopolitan MSS. In 
1 Tim. 3: 16, the Constantinopolitan MSS. generally agree in reading 
ϑεὸς ἐφανερώθη; the Alexandrian read ὅς, 85 does this Arabic ver. 


sion ἘΠῚ ἜΧΕ If God is spoken of in this verse, the Arabic 


word does not express ὃς ἐφανερώϑη, but refers to ἐυσεβεία, piety, 
Wa 3 Bad ; but at any rate the ὡς is plainly there, alt. In 


Philem. v. 2, ἀγαπητῇ is Constantinopolitan ; the Arab. version reads 
ἀδελφὴ with ’ADEFG, Copt. In Philem. v. 7. χάριν, Constantinopoli- 
tan ; χαράν our version and ACDEFG, Copt.: ν. 12, ἔπεμψα, 
Οοηβί.; ἔπεμψά σοι, our Arab. version and ACDE, Copt.: v. 20, 
σπλάγχνα... .. ἐν κυρίῳ, Const.; our version, ἐν Χριστῷ, with 
ACDFG, Copt.: v. 23, ἀσπάζονται, Const. ; our version, ἀσπάζεται, 
with ACDE. Copt. 

Further, Dr. Scholz is of opinion that the version was probably used 
in the churches in Palestine. On what he founds this probability he 
has not told us.! This is the more extraordinary as the Greek post- 
script which is appended to the version, and which he himself lays be- 
fore us, might have informed him of the place of its origin. It was 
Hems, “Βμεσα, or “£ueoe, as it 18. variously written by the ancients. 
Βίβλος yao εἶμε. . « εὐαγγελιστῶν τὰς φάσεις. . φέρουσα πιστοῦ 
Aavinh Φιλεντύλου, γόνου τελοῦντος Ταβροίηλ Φιλοχάλου λαμπρᾶς 
‘Euions αὐτοῦ οὔσης πατρίδος, x. τ. λ. The writer of this postscript 
was Karikos, a deacon, who probably added in Greek the fasts and lessons. 
The calligraphist of the Arabic text signs his name Justas Ben Leun, 
Ben Abilwalid. Hence Daniel Philentolos was probably the original 
translator, whose son, Gabriel Philokalos, entirely completed the work 
(γόνου τελοῦντος Ταβοίηλ) ) at Emesa, his native place. 


The Arabic Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Apocalypse 
contained in the Polyglots. 


§ 108. 


We should not have known from what source the editors of the Paris 
Polyglot obtained these portions of it, had it not been incidentally stated 


1 Dr. Scholz. “ Biblisch-Kritische Reiso.” p. 126, 127, and 175. Outlines 
of a history of the text. 


260 ARABIC VERSIONS, 


by the printer, Antony Vitré. From him we learn that the MS. from 
which they were edited came from Aleppo.! 

Yet they were translated directly from the Greek, as is shown by va- 
rious appearances which could have originated 1 in no other way. Εἰ g. 
in Acts 19: 9, where a man named T sagonus “ mentioned, the trans- 
lator renders. Tugavvov. τίνος by Hab Ast; in Acts. 1: 20, he 


mistook ἔπαυλὲς αὐτοῦ for ἡ πόλις αὐτοῦ, ἄχλθολυ; . in Acts 12: 18,, 
he translates the proper name ‘Poon, XO Tok in Acts 21: 1, he 


read εἰς Snagra for EIZIIATAP A; in Acts 28: 11, he renders 
ἐν mhow) magaxeyecuandre ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ᾿Αλεξανδρίνῳ, παρασήμῳ 
“Διοσκούροις thus: with a ship which had wintered with an Alexandrian, 
named Dioscorides. Some of the cases in which the Greek was incor- 
rectly divided or pointed by him are : Acts 15: 17, where ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα 
πᾶντα γνωστά is read continuously, and then the following sentence 
begins thus: ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνός ἔστι τῷ ϑεῷ π. τ. ἐ. a. from the beginning 
God's works belonged to him; Acts 19: 35, 36, where the first claus 

ends with "Aoréudos, and καί τοῦ “Διοπετοῦς is connected with 
ἀναντιβῥήτων and rendered: and if we had fallen down from Heaven, 
we could not contradict this ; Acts 20: 15, where the words ἐν Tow- 
γυλλίῳ τῇ ἐχομξνη, are connected together and rendered : situated near 
Trogyllium. The translation of ‘the words ’ ΕΣ in 19: 24, 


"Eouns, and Ζεύς, 14: 12, CS ithe ify Ur eras as, 


others, shows that the author had the Sade words before him. 

The same is the case, likewise, in the Epistles. In 2 Cor. 6:14, 
μὴ γίνεσϑε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες τοῖς ἀπίστοις, a singular etymology is at- 
tributed to ἑτεροζιγοῦντες, YOUR SCALES should not incline towards 
unbelievers. A similar one, too, occurs in 2 Cor. 6: 5, ἐν ᾿ἀκαταστξασίαις, 
in want of places to lode i in. There isa more serious mistake in 
Gal. 4: 25, συστοιχεῖ τῇ “Πηρουσαλήμ, it borders on Jerusalem. The 
expression, xara ἄνθρωπον, in 1 Cor. 15: 82, is falsely rendered, as be- 
"comes a man, &c. In2 Cor. 10: 16, ὑπεὲ vuewve is confounded with 
ὑπερκείμενα, and ἕτοιμα with évziue; and, in the preceding verse, 
κύποις is translated as τόποις. True, the reading κόποις, likewise, is in 
the text, but it came in subsequently ‘from another source ; for the mis- 
takes as to the words ὑπερέκεινα and ἕτοιμα arose in part from 
τόποις, and hence vaeoxélueva and EVT LUG came to be rendered, 
PLACES sttuated high above your country and precious. In2 Cor. 10: 
13, κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανών, the Greek word itself, κανών, is 


retained, “cera wails. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 12, οὗτοί 


Sf, and many 


εἶσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν σπιλάδες, συνευωχούμενοι, the translator 
takes ἀγάπαι to mean courtesans or prostitutes, as though he read 
ἀγαπηταῖς; and συνευωχούμενοι is solicitously translated by three 


1 His words are, according to Le Long's citation: ἢ Arabici textus: quatuor 
Evangelia cum Latina translatione juxta Romanum exemplar ἃ. 1591, et reliqua 
N. T. ex codice Mspto. quem. ex Aleppo adduci curaverat R. P. Joseph Car- 
melita, adornata sunt.’ : 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 261 


words: These are they who place their prostitutes with them at feasts. 
In Rev. 2: 5, ἔργα τῶν ΜΝικολαϊεῶν is rendered, works of the con- 
querors, SF Lishf Jus . In 14:9, OYTMOT was mistaken for 


@ANATOY, amistake which was the more easy as the last word is 
frequently abbreviated in MSS. into ΘΙ ΤΟΎ: 


§ 109. 


' These portions of the New Testament were translated by a different 
person from him who made the version of the Gospels. The style is 
dissimilar in a great many respects. TI will show this at least in one 
point, viz. the use of certain words. In the Gospels, for é£eore or οὐκ 


ἔξεστι, the expression, j= Qh<— sett jeu wi λον, it is 


solved or it is not solved, is invariably used, (Matt. 12: 2, 10. 14: 4. 19: 
3. Mark 2: 24. 3:4. 10:2. 12: 14. Luke 6: 2,4. etc.) This is not 
the case in the Acts and Epistles, where for the most part the expression 


ib. » or Xoo is employed. (Acts 22: 25. 21: 37. 2: 29. 
1 Cor. 6: 12. 10: 23. 2 Cor. 12: 4.) In the Gospels, ἑκατόνταρχος is 
always, ei Ashe (Matt. 8:5, 9. 13: 27. Luke 7: 2, 6) and in 
the Acts, ἀμ Cauasp (10: 1,22. 24: 31.) In the Acts στρατ- 
ηγὸς τοῦ ἱέρου is Js sas pel in the Gospels Sagi D>. 
In the Gospels βίβλος is always Rw or sx; in the Acts and 
Epistles it is the word consecrated by ΤῊΣ to the Koran, 


Resa, (Acts 1:20. 17: 42. 19: 19. Gal. 3: 10. Philipp. 4: 3. Heb. 
9:19.) In the Gospels νόμος is always \y. in the Acts and 
ἢ ΣΝ 3 


Epistles, Bs ὦ . (Rom. 5: 18. seq. Philipp. 3: 6,9. 1'Tim. 1:8. Heb. 


7: 12, James 2: 12. Acts 15: 24.) In the Gospels διάβολος is (λα; ᾿ 
in the Acts and Epistles, Mea SS. (Eph. 6:11. 2 Tim. 2: 26.1 Pe- 


ter 5:8. 1 John 3: 8. Acts 10: 38. 13: 10.) ete. 

The Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, as we 
see in part from the similar use of the expressions just cited, are by the 
same translator. I cannot venture to include the Apocalypse in this as- 
sertion. ‘The common originof the Acts and Epistles, however, 1s eviN- 
ced by a similarity in language and in the mode of translation, by the 
custom of throwing light on difficult passages by means of paraphrase, 
(Acts 16:2. 15: 20. 18: 15. 1 Cor.5: 10. Rom. 6:5, 16. 14:9 etc.) and 
the circumstance that this license is united with careful fidelity, and with 
a special solicitude in rendering words compounded with μέτα, σὺν, and 
especially with πρό, which last is expressed by cos ,Riw, and fre- 


quently by Raw. (Acts 2: 25, ngowewpny, τῇ Raw; 91, 


262 ARABIC VERSIONS. 


TOW, καὶ «9 Raw ; Rom. 1: 2, προεπηγγείλατο, Aca Sams 
2Peter 3: 16, προγινωαχοντές, re ΤΩ ΩΝ hath 


_ The text of this version has not escaped foreign additions. We fre- 
» quently find the same word twice translated, and even short clauses twice 
rendered in different language. ‘These repetitions can hardly have be- 
longed to this version originally, but must have been adopted afterwards 
from other MSS. (Εἰ g. Acts 15: 15, 28. 16: 37, 39. 21: 11, 13, 27.) 
In Acts 18: 7,to ὀνόματι /ovorou the word Tizuv has been added, from 
the Arabico-Syriac version. Other examples are Rom. 6: 21, 23. 12: 
8. 13: 5. 14: 20, ete. Among these later interpolations must be reck- 
oned, likewise, the word &,o=15 s\f which is appended to “/radias 


in Acts 18: 2, and might otherwise lead us astray in regard to this ver- 
sion; for then it would be necessary to bring it down to the times of the 
crusades, in which Europeans generally, except the Greeks, were term- 
edin the East and in Africa, Franks. ‘The Apocalypse, concerning ' 
which it is very uncertain whether or not it is to be considered as ἃ part. 
of the same version, was translated from a MS. which had been inter- 
ie from the Scholia of Andreas of Cappadocia. (Rev. 1: 2—5. 2: 
16. 


§ 110. 


The country in which this version originated is stated, very unex- 
pectedly, by the author himself. In Acts IId Luke, enumerating the 
different lands from which the people came who were in Jerusalem at 
Pentecost, mentions (v.9,) ra μέρη τῆς AcGuns τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην, 


which our translator renders thus: csi csmlads Busts 8] 
Lisp, the region of Africa in which our country lies. Wemay . 


now be convinced that the reading Al Franjia, which occurs with the 
word Italy in Acts 18:2, was of later origin than the version itself. 
For who would expect to find so accurate a knowledge of the Greek in 
Cyrenaica in the times of the crusades? 


§ 111. 


The Acts of the Apostles and Epistles were translated from a MS. of 
the Spe eeeerelitan Recension. We will give a single specimen of 
each. 


Acts II 
Lucian. Hesycuivs. 
7. λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους Arab. λέγοντες 
20. πρὶν ἢ Arab. πρίν 


2» , - ᾽ 
29, ἔχδοτ. λαβόντες διὰ χειρῶν Arab. ἔχδοτ. διὰ χειρός 
Ὁ 4 
30. ὀσφύος αὑτοῦ, τὸ κατὰ 
, 32 
σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν : Arab 


Χριστὸν, nations 


} 
| 
| 
17. ἐνύπνια Arab. ἐνυπνίοις 
' 
ν {ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ καϑίσαι 
] 


ARABIC VERSIONS. 263 


my ote εἰφϑὴ phan οὐτοῦ . Arab. | ἐγκαταλείῳφϑη εἰς ἄδου. 
εἰς ἄδου ν 


33. ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς BL. Arab. | 6 ὑμεῖς βλ. 
41. ἀσμένως ἀποδεξάμενοι Arab. | ἀποδεξάμενοι , 
, ἀποστόλων ἐγένετο ἐν “Ιερουσαλὴμ 
43. ἀποστόλων ἐγένετο Arab. |e δὲ ὴν μέγας ἐπὶ πάντας, 
καὶ 


47. καϑ' ἡμέραν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ §=Arab. | καϑ' ἡμέραν. 
Ist Epistle to the Corinthians, VII. Chap. ἡ 


LuctaAn. at Hesycuivs. 


’ a " 2 r 
3. ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν Ar. | ὀφειλήν 
- ' αἴ ὦ ~ i - ~ 
5. τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ τῇ προσευχῇ Ar. τῇ προσευχῇ. 


΄ > ‘ ai > 
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέρχεσϑε Ar. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἢτε 
> ᾿ δ ἢ | > ' τ » 
13. ἀφίετω αὗτον Ar. ἀφίετω τὸν ἄνδρα 
᾽ "πᾶς > ~ » 2 2 ~ 44 
14. ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ Ar. | ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῷ ‘Du 
. | ' c , 
17. ἐμέρισ. ὃ ϑεός Ar. ἐμέρισ. 0 κύριος 
' ᾽ c , 
κέχληκ. ὃ κύριος Ι Ar. | χέχληκ. ὁ ϑεὸς 
, ’ c c , 
22. ὁμοίως καὶ ὃ ἐλεύϑ. Ar. δμοίως ὃ ἐλεύϑ. 
94, μεμέρισται καὶ { καὶ μεμέρισται καὶ 
c Ἐ}6 eros 
ἢ γυνὴ ἣ παρϑένος re ἢ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος 
i . ς ᾿ ” 
ἡ ἄγαμος 4 καὶ ἡ παρϑένος ἢ ἄγαμος 
μεριμνᾷ μεριμνᾷ 
᾿ Ἣν ¥ ~ sire, it ἯΙ 
37. ἑδραῖος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Ar. τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ ἑδραῖος 


This text, which first appeared in the Paris Polyglot, was reprinted in 
Walton’s. The edition of the English Bible Society (rx 


in 1811, 4to maj.) has repeated it as respects the New Testament. I 
know not whether it was amended by the aid of MSS. or not. 


§ 112. 


The Arabic edition of the Bible which is said to have appeared at 
Bucharest in 1700 is now unknown; as also another which Athanasius, 
Bishop of Antioch, Patriarch of the Melchites, caused to be printed at 
Aleppo in 1708, which I have sought in vain in all the great libraries I 
have visited. 

The Arabic New Testament printed at London in 1717 in 4to., un- 
der the superintendence of Salomo Negri, was (according to Michaelis, 
Einleit. ins N. T. 1. Th. § 67. p. 453. 4th ed.) printed from the En- 
glish Polyglot, with some alterations according to the Greek. 

In the Chronicon of Dorotheus, metropolitan of Monembasia, (in vul- 
gar Greek, Venice 1778, 4to.) we find it stated in the section (p. 424) 
“Περὶ τοὺ «Σοῦλταν Meyuécn, (on Mohammed II, conqueror of Constan- 
tinople,) that Mechmebey, a son of Amuratuzi of Trebizond, made in 
the seraglio, for this monarch, atranslation of the Bible from the Greek 


264 LATIN VERSIONS. 
“Ὁ: ; 


into Arabic.! However interesting this book may be on other accounts, 

it can be of little use for our purposes. _ ᾿ 
_ An Arabic paraphrase of some pericope οἵ Paul’s HiMictles, written 
by the side of the old Syriac text of these Epistles, has been discovered 
. Num. XXXII; 


~ 


by an oriental scholar of great merit, in Cod. Syr. Ve 
and specimens of it have been published by him.2 


LATIN VERSIONS. 


A 1|3. ‘ 


In the first period, before the time of Jerome the Presbyter, there 
were in Africa, Italy and Gaul several Latin versions differing ve ! 
much from each other, as we may be convinced by a few specimens. 
Matt. δ: 16, “ Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut vide: at bona 
facta vestra, et clarificent patrem vestrum qui in ceelis est.” (Jren. Adv. — 
Har. L. IV. c. 37.) “ Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut 
videant opera vestra bona, et magnificent patrem vestrum, qui in ceelis 
est.” (Hilar. Pict. Tract.in Ps. LXV.) Matt.6: 31. “ Nolite cog- 
itare dicentes: quid edemus, aut quid bibemus, aut quid vestiemur ? πα΄ 
enim nationes querunt. (Cyprian. De Orat. Dom.) “ Nolite solliciti 
esse dicentes : quid manducabimus, et quid bibemus, aut quo operiemur? 
hec enim omnia gentes inquirunt.” (Augustin. De Op. Manich. C. 1.) 
Matt. 11: 12. “ A diebus enim Joannis Baptiste regnum ccelorum co- 
gitur, et cogentes diripiunt illud.” (Ambros. L. VI. in Lucam. c.7. et 
De Cain et Abel.c. 4.) “A diebus autem Joannis regnum celorum 
vim patitur, et vim facientes diripiunt illud.” (Hil. Pict. in Ps. VIII. 
n. 46, Optat. Milev. De Schism. Donatist. L. V.c.5.) “Α diebus Jo. 
regnum celorum violentum est, et qui vim faciunt, diripiunt illud.” (Jren. 
L.IV. Adv. Her. ο. 37.) Luke 9: 62. ‘‘ Nemo tenens manicam aratri, 
post se attendens, intrabit in regnum ceelorum.” (Optat. Milevit. De 
Schism. Donatist. L. II. c. 11. “Nemo retro respiciens aratrum te- 
nens aptus est regno celorum.” (Hilar. in Ps. CX XII. n. 4.) Luke 
21: 34. ‘‘ Attendite—ne graventur corda vestra cruditate et vinolentia 
et curis secularibus.” (Augustin. Contra Adimant. Manich. C. 14.) 
“ Attendite—ne graventur corda vestra in crapula, et ebrietate et solici- 
tudinibus secularibus.” (Iren, L. IV. c. 37.n. 3.) ; 

Acts 2:8. “‘ Accipietes virtutem spiritu sancto in vos, et eritis mihi _ 
testes in Hierusalem in omni Judza, et in Samaria, usque in fines terre.” 
(Ambros. De Spir. Sanct. L. I. c. 7.) “ Accipietis virtutem spiritis 
sancti supervenientem in vos, et eritis mihi testes apud Hierusalem et - 
in tota Judea et Samaria et usque ad totam terram.” (Augustin. Con- 
tra Epist. fundam. c.9.) Acts 2:2. “Et factus est subito de ccelo 
sonus, tanquam ferretur flatus vehemens, et implevit totum illum locum, 


1 Prof. Alter in the “ Litterarischen Anzeiger” 9th number of the year 1799. 


2 Adler, Nov. Test. Vers. Syr. denuo examinate etc. Hafnis 1789. 4to. p .27—. 
30. and 38. 


‘ 
) 


re al VERSIONS. 265 
ἊΝ vy ty x 

“bi erant sedentes, et vise sunt ipsis lingue divise quasi ignis.” (Augus- 
tin. loc. cit.) “Εἰ factus est subito de ccelo sonus, tanquam vi magna 
spiritus ferretur; et replevit totam domum, ubi erant sedentes, et vise 
sunt ipsis disperse lingue tanquam ignis.” (Ambros. de Spirit. Sanct. 

L. I. c. 16.) ye 
Col. 5: 15. “Qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis crea- 
ture; quia in ipso constituta sunt omnia in ceelis et in terra, visibilia et 
invisibilia, sive throni, sive principatus, sive potestates, sive dominatio- 
nes, omnia per ipsum et in ipso condita sunt, etc.” (Hilar. L. VII. De 
Trinit. c. 49.) ‘‘ Quia ipse est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus om- 
nis creature, in quo creata sunt omnia in ceelestibus et in terra, sive vis- 
ibilia sive invisibilia, sive sedes, sive dominationes, sive principatus et 
potestates, omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt.” (Ambros. Comment. 
in Ps. CX VIL. Serm. ΓΙ. c.1.) Col. 2:8. “ Videte, ne quis vos 
depredetur per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam.” (Cyprian. Ep. 1,11.) 
τ“ Cavete, ne quis vos depredetur per philosophiam et inanem seduc- 
tionem secundum traditionem hominum, et secundum elementa hujus 
_ mundi.” (Ambros. De fide. L. I. c.3. Comment. in Ps. CX VIII. Serm. 
92. δ. 1.) “ Videte ne quis vos spoliet per philosophiam et inanem de- 
-ceptionem secundum trad. hom.” (Milar. De Trin. L. I. c. 13. et 
AIT. c. 20.) Col. 2: 15.“ Exutus carnem et potestates ostentui fecit, 


triumphatis iis cum fiducia in semetipso.”’ (Hilar. De Trin. L. Ic. — 


13. et LX. c. 10.) “‘ Exuens se carnem principatus et potestates exem- 
plavit, fiducialiter triumphans eos in semetipso.” (Contra Faust. L. 
XVI. c. 29.) 1 Peter 3:3. “Ut sint non que a foris ornantur capil- 
lorum crispationibus, aut circumdatz auro aut veste decora, sed ille ab- 
sconditus cordis vetri homo” . . . . (Augustin. De bono conjug. c. 12.) 
“Non in plicatu capillorum, aut auro aut veste pretiosd, quoniam ille 
absconditus cordis homo, qui est pauper: seculo, ipsé est locuples Deo.” 
(Ambros. ad Virg. Exhort. Tom. I. p. 141, ed. Erasm.) 

Jerome speaks, likewise, of several interpreters, particularly of the 
New Testament.' A passage in Augustine, in which he speaks of 
the multitude of those who had translated the Bible from the Greek, 
seems to relate to the New no less than to the Old Testament.” 


§ 114. 


Which of these versions was first in the order of time, or at what 
time the translation of the New Testament into Latin was begun, are 
questions which at present can hardly be satisfactorily answered. Au- 
gustine tells us, “primis fidet temporibus” ;? but this expression may 
be understood as referring rather to the origin of the particular religious 
sect to which this father belonged, than to that of Christianity gener- 


1 Hieron. ad Damas. “ Si autem veritas est querenda de pluribus, cur non ad 
Grecam originem revertentes, ea que vel a vitiosis interpretibus male reddita 
...-corrigimus? Neque veroego de veteri disputo instrumento... . de Vovo 
nunc loquor Testamento, quod Grecum esse non dubium est.” 


2 Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. L. II. c. 11. 


3 L. II. De Doctr. Christ. c. 11. “Ut enim cuique primis fidel temporibus 
in manus venit codex Grecus, et aliquantulum facultatis 8101 utriusque lingua 
habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari.” — 


“ὧι 


J 


266 LATIN VERSIONS, 


ally. We have not much information in regard to these early days of 
Christianity in the Provincia Africe, Even in respect to the Bishops 
of Carthage we can go no further back than the close of the second 
century. 

Some one of the African versions, certainly, must have been made in 
\~ “*~ this period. For Tertullian expresses himself very plainly respecting 
-vx~ ©! the existence of one. Hespeaks of a callida aut simplex eversio, which 
{4,42 in his opinion misrepresented a passage of the New Testament. Such 
paronomasias as eversio for mala versio are frequent with him ; and the 
expression, in usum extit, shows that in citing biblical passages the Latin 
language was the usual one among the common people.' He says 
something similar in another place, viz. in his book against Praxeas; 
more plainly still in his books against Marcion. Now, if in his days a 
Latin text had already gone in usum, it must have been prepared at the 

close of the 2d century. 


wy λα, 


ᾧ 116. 


‘». Rome was not the place where the first Latin version originated. 
ὑμὴν From the days of Hadrian onward under the Antonines, Greek litera- 
44 ‘ture prevailed so much in the metropolis of the world, and the use of 
~~") this language was so general among all classes, that the necessity of a 
~~~ = version was there least felt. In Italy, aside from Rome, one must have 
been more necessary ; and therefore we should expect one to be made 
there, while in Rome it was hardly thought of. Accordingly Augus- 
tine speaks of a versio [tala and ascribes distinguished precedence to it ;* 
“=~ yet, though the circumstance is very natural, pains have been taken, I 
t-te ‘know not why, to get rid of this word Jtala. 

Bentley was the first who proposed the conjecture that we should read 
illa instead of Itala, and instead of nam est—que est verborum tenacior. 
Casley is said afterwards to have observed a difference in MSS. in this 
passage ; and Ernesti favored and strongly recommended this change, 
which thus obtained many friends and supporters among us. 

The variation in some MSS. which David Casley asserts that he dis- 
covered, extends only to the word Jtala ; and yet it is of no less impor- 
tance whether the reading nam est be correct. If this remains, the illa 
proposed can in no way be consistent with the connexion. 

And suppose a single MS. reads ἐϊα for Itala, or even two; what 


1 De Monogam. c. 11. He is speaking of 1 Cor. 7: 39. ‘ Sciamus plane 
non sic esse in Greco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum 
“aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem: Si autem dormierit vir ejus, quasi de 
futuro sonet,’’ etc. and, Adv. Praxeam.c. 5. “" Rationalis etiam Deus, et ratio in 
ipso prius; et ita abipso omnia. Que ratio sensus ipsius est. Hane Greci 
λόγον dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in usu 
est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, sermonem dicere in primordio 
apud Deum fuisse.” L Il. Adv. Marcion. c.9. ‘In primis tenendum, quod 
Greca Scriptura (Gen. II. 7. ἀναπνοὴν ζωῆς) signavit, adflatum nominans, non 
spiritum. Quidam enim de Greco interpretantes, non recogitata differentia, 
nec curatd proprietate verborum, pro adflatu spiritam ponunt.” L. V. Adv. 
Mare. c.4. ‘ Que sunt allegorica, (Galat. IV. 24) id est aliud portendentia : 
hec sunt duo testamenta, sive due ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum.” 


2 L. II. De Doctr. Christ.c. 16. ‘In ipsisautem inter pretationibus Itala cete- 
ris preeferatur ; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententia.” 


LATIN VERSIONS. 267 
* 


follows? On what principle of criticism must we proceed? Must we 
not inquire which reading might most easily have arisen from the 
other? Ifso, must it not be admitted that z//a might very naturally 
arise from abbreviating the word Jtala? We cannot so easily explain 
how a copyist could make Jéala out of the word illa. Were it as easy, 
how happens it that Jtala has nowhere else been made of the word idla, 
which occurs in MSS. thousands of times? Of two readings, one of 
which exhibits a common occurrence and the other one somewhat rare, 
which, according to the laws of criticism, ought we to prefer ? 

_ Among the arguments in behalf of the reading ¢//a, much is made of 
the context as favoring and requiring it. What then does Augustine 
say in the preceding chapter? When obscure and unintelligible expres- 
sions occur, says he, it may contribute to their elucidation to consult and 
compare several different versions; but amended ‘copies only must be 
used, that we may not be imposed upon by inaccuracies. And then he 
proceeds in the following chapter: “In ipsis autem interpretationibus 
—ceteris preferatur—est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate senten- 
tie. Et Latinis quibuslibet emendandis Greci adhibeantur,” ete. 
There cannot be a doubt on the face of these words, that he intends to 
name that particular one among the Latin versions which contained the 
fewest unintelligible expressions ; and which, in case of the occurrence 
of such in others, would most aid in explaining them. Now suppose we 
read : tlla, gue est—what would the father say, but that, in order to 
clear up obscure expressions, that version which was least obscure 
should be employed? <A very sorry comfort, indeed, and one which 
the unlearned portion of his readers could hardly apply to their own 
case. It would be expected, therefore, that he should designate a par- 
ticular version, which in his opinion, or that of good judges, would afford 
aid in timeof need. Now if the scope of the writer as well as the con- 
nexion demand something of this kind, we cannot hesitate to give the 
preference to a reading which fulfils the demand, and designates by 
name the version which excels the rest in point of perspicuity. 

This, too, is the signification of this father’s language in another 
work. In case of discrepancy between the Latin versions, he says, we 
must consult those which originated in the country whence the doctrine 
came tous; and if this does not avail, we must recur to the original lan- 
guage from which these versions were made.! He here concedes to a 
foreign version the superiority over the African; i. e. to the version of 
that country from which the Provincia Africe received christianity. 
And whence then did these Italian colonies along the African coast re- 
ceive their religious faith, but from the mother-country ? 

It was, therefore, an Italian version to which Augustine applied this 


1 Augustin. L. XI.c.2. Contra Faust. Manich. “Ita si de fide exemplarium 
questio verteretur, sicut in nonnullis, que pauce sunt, et sacrarum litterarum 
notissime sententiarum varietates, vel ex aliarum regionum codicibus, unde ipsa 
doctrina commeavit, nostra dubitatio dijudicaretur: vel si hi ipsi quoque codices 
variarent, plures paucioribus, vetustiores recentioribus preferrentur : et si adhuc 
esset incerta varietas, prwecedens lingua, unde illud interpretatuiw est, consule- 
retur.” 


268 LATIN VERSIONS. 


᾿ς encomium ; but which he intended among the many in existence,’ we 
can hardly now determine. That Italy gradually acquired a great 

_ number of them, we see from the citations in the writings of the Latin 
fathers. This Italian version intended by him he seems even to have 
regarded as more ancient than those which had originated in Africa. 


§ 116. 


The period at which these versions arose (the latter half of the sec- 
"ond or the commencement of the third century,) enables us readily to 
determine what must have been the character of the Greek copies from 
which they were executed. It was the period in which the inconsider- 
ate pains of pious readers brought the MSS. into that heterogeneous and 
arbitrary condition, which was afterwards arrested by Origen, Hesych- 
jus, and Lucian. It was the period of the κοινὴ éxdoorg. We have 
already discussed so fully the text which was the basis of these versions, 
that we shall here merely refer toour former observations, in § 27, 28. 


§ 117. 


These versions, as was intended, passed into the hands of a multi- 
tude of readers. Eachof them had its good and bad qualities, and it 
was therefore attempted to remedy from one the imperfections of a- 
nother ; so that in this way all of them became encumbered with foreign 
additions. Such a mode of procedure could not continue long without 
causing a gradual admixture of one version with another, until neither 
was any longer like itself. Such was really the case; for as early as the 
fourth century every MS. appeared to be a separate version.” 

There were even respectable persons who ascribed special value to a 
copy, if it was interpolated from several versions; for they thought that 
from many exhibitions of the same passage the reader might more easi- 
ly understand and correctly interpret it.2 And this would have been 
right, had there been no inconveniences to outweigh this advantage. 

Besides all this, readers added to the MSS. explanatory notes and 
scholia for their own information, which were not afterwards invariably 
separated from the text, as they should have been, and thus increased 
the confusion. ) 

Those who knew something of Greek endeavored to avail themselves 
of their knowledge by writing the Greek Testament at the side of one 


1 They have been collected by Peter Sabatier: “ Bibliorum Sacrorum Latin 
versiones antique,’ ete. IEI. Vols. Remis. 1743. fol.; and by Jos. Blanchini : 
“ Evangeliarium quadruplex Latine versionis antique, seu veteris Italice,”’ etc. 
Rome. 1749. Part. 11. usually in four volumes folio. 


2 Hieronym. Epist.ad Damas. ‘Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides adhi- 
benda est, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria, quot codices.” 

3 Toexplain obscure expressions, says Augustine, (De Doctr. Christ. L. II. 
ce. 15,) “ Plurimum hic quoque juvat interpretum numerositas collatis codicibus 
inspecta atque discussa: tantum absit falsitas: nam codicibus emendandis pri- 
mitus debet invigilare solertia eoram, qui Scripturas divinas nésse desiderant, ut 
emendatis non emendati cedant, ex uno duntaxat interpretationis genere veni- 
entes.’"’ Here non emendati and ex uno interpretationis genere venientes are 8y- 
nonymous. Emendati, therefore, are those which have many additions from 
séveral versions. ΄ 


- JEROME’S EMENDATION. 269 


of the Latin versions, that they might be able to consult the original di- 
rectly, when doubt arose or the version appeared to be imperfect. From 
such MSS. were derived the Greco-Latin MSS., of which we still pos- 
sess several. The possessors of such MSS., as may be seen from those 
still extant, often undertook to correct the versions from the Greek, in 
an arbitrary manner, according to their own judgment; and the more 
they Beene, the more unlike what it was originally did the version 
become. 

Thus each version no longer resembled itself, and if the copies were 
to be subjected much longer to the caprice of their possessors, without 
any public superintendence, there might well have been apprehensions 


in regard to the doctrines which would be deduced from such remarka- 
ble MSS. 


JEROME'S EMENDATION. 


§ 118. 


It was a bold step to oppose this mischief and attempt to evoke order 
and harmony. Jerome felt it to be so, though he was urged to it by the 
most distinguished ecclesiastic in Christendom, viz. Damasus, who then 
occupied the chair of Rome, ‘‘ Quis enim,” (he writes to Damasus) 
*‘doctus pariter vel indoctus, cum in manum volumen assumserit, et a 
saliva, quam semel imbibit, viderit discrepare quod lectitat, non statim 
erumpat in vocem, me falsarium, me clamans esse sacrilegum... - 
adversum qam invidiam... me consolatur, quod et tu, qui summus 
sacerdos es, fieri jubes,” etc.} ' 

With these expectations Jerome entered upon his task, and prosecu- 
ted it with a moderation beyond what could have been expected, con- 
sidering his usual rashness. He compared one or more of the existing 
versions with Greek MSS., and altered them according to the original 
text when it was necessary. But, in order that the discrepancy between 
his emendation and the ancient versions might not be too striking, he 
was careful, in the selection of his MSS., to get only such ancient cop- 
ies as contained a text analogous to that from which these versions had 
been made. He therefore employed only copies of the period of the 
χοινὴ ἔχδοσις, and scrupulously avoided the editions of Lucian and 
Hesychius,? which deviated too far from the text to which the ears of 
the Latins were accustomed. 

Besides being so cautious in the selection of his MSS., he also made 


1 “Epistola ad Damasum,” or as this Epistle is denominated in several books, , 
“Hieronymi in Evangelistas ad Damasum prefatio.” 


2 Epist. ad Damas. ‘“Pretermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio 
nuncupatos paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio, quibus utique nec in 
toto veteri instrumento post Lxx interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in novo 
profuit emendasse. _ Igitur hec presens prefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evan- 
gelia. . . .codicum Grecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, nec qut mul- 
tum a lectionis Latine consuetudine discreparent.” 


270 JEROME’S EMENDATION. 


so sparing a use of them as to resort to their assistance only when the 
sense was widely mistaken and greater accuracy was necessary." 

If we may infer from his Commentaries the principles of procedure 
which he silently followed in his emendation, he sometimes consulted 
Origenian MSS. in doubtful passages.? This reasonable supposition 
led Bentley to the singular notion of finding Origen’s Recension with- 

ut variation in Jerome’s amended edition. _ 
The last three years of the life of Damasus Jerome spent with him 
and in full possession of his confidence, at Rome; and after his de- 
cease he forever abandoned the noisy and dissolute city for a simple hut 
in Bethlehem. We are thus enabled to determine the period of Jerome’s 
emendation, viz. the last year but one of the life οὗ Damasus. 

Jerome presented him first the Gospels alone: ‘‘ Igitur hee presens 
prefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evangelia.’” This circum- 
stance has led some to apprehend that his emendation did not compre- 
hend the whole New Testament. The language shows this to be a 
mistake ; he presented only the Gospels with the present dedication— 
plainly pointing to something more yet to come. Subsequently, in a 
catalogue of Christian writers at the end of which he names his own 
works, he mentions among them the New Testament amended by him 
from Greek copies, and the Old which he translated from Hebrew.* 
He says the same in a letter to Lucinius: the New. Testament I have 
faithfully rendered according to the Greek original; for, as the Hebrew 
MSS. are the standard of the Old, so are the Greek of the New.* 

In an Epistle to Marcella, who had communicated to him in a friend- 
ly way all the calumnies of his enemies in respect to his emendation of 
the Gospels, he presents some passages of the Pauline Epistles accord- 
ing to his amendment. Rom. 12:1 was generally read: “spe gau- 
dentes, tempori servientes;” but by him: ‘‘spe gaudentes, Deo servi- 
entes.’ Theold MSS. omitted, in 1 Tim. 5: 19, the words: “‘nisi sub 
duobus aut tribus testibus;” he restored them. The former read in 
1 Tim. 1: 15, ‘‘ humanus sermo et omni acceptione dignus ;” he amend- 
ed the passage thus: “‘ fidelis sermo et omni acceptione dignus.”” 

The text of his emendation is found only in those works which he 
composed after the death of Damasus. In the Commentaries on Mat- 
thew, (certainly the most hasty of his productions,) we might reasonably 
expect that he would not use an inferior version as the basis of his ex- 
positions, but the one which he had amended. Nor could he in a com- 
mentary trust to his memory, as in other cases he did, and was obliged 
to do, from the multitude of his quotations. It was his duty to have the 
MS. itself before his eyes. 


1 Epist. ad Damas. “Ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum, que sensum 


| yidebantur mutare, correctis, relinqua manere pateremur. 


» 


2 Comment. in Matt. 24: 36. “In quibusdam codicibus additum est neque 
filius ; cumin quibusdam Grecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus, 
hoc non habeatur adscriptum,’’ Comment, ad Galatas III. 1. “ quod in exem- 
plarius Adamantii non habetur,” etc. ; 

3 “Novum Test. Grece fidei reddidi ; vetus juxta Hebraicam transtuli.”’ 

4 Ep. ad Lucin. LXXI. (formerly 28) § 5. “Novum Testamentum Greece 
reddidi auctoritati. Ut enim veterum librorum fides de Hebraicis voluminibus 
examinanda est; ita novorum Greci sermonis normam desiderat.” 


9. Ad Marcellam, XX VII; formerly Ep. 102. 


JEROME’S EMENDATION. 971 


Accordingly, his Commentaries are upon this version. He observes 
where it renders the Greek imperfectly, (e. g. Matt. 5: 25, εὐνοῶν" 6: 11, 
ἐπιούσιον" 16, ἀφανίζειν" 9: 82, κωφὸς" 11: 16, ἀγορα᾽ 15: 30, κυλ- 
λούς 16: 22, ἵλεως σοι") mentions the variations of other MSS., (6: 25. 
11: 19. 16: 2, etc.) and blames or justifies them. 

Its relation to the present Vulgate, the Clementine edition of 1592, 
is this: the latter agrees in general with the former, differing from 
it only in transpositions of words, or such slight changes as have been 
made by time or the critical judgment of him who executed the Cle- 
mentine edition. We will spare ourselves the trouble of proving by a 
collation of Matthew what will strike every one immediately on his 
own inspection ; especially as, in speaking of Alcuin’s emendation, we 
shall present a collation of some chapters of the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians as its text is exhibited in the commentaries of this father. 


δ 119. 


Though Jerome exercised great caution, he gained, nevertheless, as 
he anticipated, more enemies than friends. His work was hardly in 
circulation, when the voice of zealots was loudly raised against him; and 
he occasionally chastised them with considerable severity.! Even the 
authority of Damasus availed so little to cause a general reception of 
his emendation that every one for himself adopted or rejected the old or 
new text, as judgment or prejudice directed him. 

In the 5th century the supreme pontiff at Rome, Leo the Great, still 
used the ancient version, and not the purest even of the copies of that, 
as may be inferred from the large addition he makes to Matthew 20: 28. 
(‘Vos autem queritis de minimo crescere et de magno minui, rel.” ) which 
he quotes in his Epistle to Pulcheria. 

_ The authority of Gregory the Great, in the 6th century, first decided 
in favor of the edition of Jerome. Gregory made it the basis of his 
moral Annotations on Job, and only used the old version for the purpose 
of comparison, and rather to discover its. defects than to employ it in ex- 
planation. In his epistle to Leander, bishop of Seville, to whom he 
dedicated this work, he says, indeed, that he used sometimes the old and 
sometimes the new version, as the oneor the other was best adapted to 
his purpose, since both were recognised by the apostolical chair which 
he occupied ;? but his actual procedure in this work evinces his predi- 
lection for Jerome. In his other writings he confines himself wholly to 
Jerome’s edition, so that his citations would be of uncommon value in 
restoring this emendation. Leander, probably, did much to promote 


1 Hieronym. Ep. XXVII (formerly 102) ad Marcellam.—‘‘Ad me repente 
perlatum est quosdam homunculos mihi studiose detrahere, cur adversum auc- 
toritatem veterum, et totius mundi opinionem, aliquid in Evangeliis emendare 
tentaverim. Quos ego cum possim meo jure contemnere (asino quippe lyra 
superflue canit). .. . ita responsum habeant. . . . Latinorum codicum vitios- 
itatem. . . .ad Grecam originem. . . . voluisse revocare”’ etc. 

2 Greg. Ep. ad Leandr. C.5. ‘ Novam vero translationem dissero : sed cum 
probationis cansa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem per testimonia assumo; ut 
quia sedes apostolica, cui deo auctore praesideo utraque utitur, mei quoque Jabor 
studii ex utrdque fulciatur. 


ὃ 


rs ὍΝ de ἢ 

212 oo ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 
4 νυν |. "or 

its adopti 1, for in the 9th century it was the dominant and authorised 
version in Spain! q | εἰ 

ΩΝ all § 120. 

ΑΒ Jerome’s emendation adhered so closely to the other versions, it 
might frequently happen that the former would be elucidated from the 

atter, and even enriched with additions which he had rejected. On the 
other hand, however, there were readers who corrected the ancient ver- 
sions by consulting Jerome’s edition, and thus formed a third text, which 
was a mixture of the two. The Codex Argent. of the Gospels at Bres- 
cia is such a MS., as is thought by those who have themselves examin- 
ed the Codex.? Their opinion is established by the following consider- 
ations. The MS. exhibits in general one of the ancient versions, but 
does not contain many additions and peculiarities which are found in 
them. It coincides more frequently than these with Jerome’s phraseol- 
ogy. Blanchini® mentions another Codex of the Gospels ( Vatic. 7016,) 
of about the 8th century, (as is shown by the specimen,) the text of 
which is compounded partly from one of the old versions and partly 
from Jerome’s edition. ‘This may have been the case more or less in 
many other MSS.; so thatin the 8th century the complaints respecting 
the corruption of the MSS. occasioned a new revision of them. 


THE EMENDATION OF ALCUIN. 


§ 121. 


The merit of originating this emendation is to be attributed to a cele- 
brated monarch, whose exalted mind first perceived the occasion for it and 
actively promoted it throughout; and who, though he needed some one 
else to execute the task, sketched outto him the path he must pursue. The 
condition of the biblical MSS. did not escape the attention of Charles 
the Great. He therefore ordered that care should be taken to have good 
and pure copies of the Old and New Testament in the churches.4 

He afterwards caused a selection of the homilies of the fathers for 
ndays and festivals tobe compiled by Alcuin, that the clergy of 
his kingdom might be provided with a collection of sermons. The pre- 
face to thi he composed himself, and in it he speaks of the emendation of 
the biblical copies, asa thing which he had happily accomplished.5 


1 Isidor. Hispal. De offic. eccles. L. I. ο. 12. 

2 Philipp. Garbellus apud Blanchinium. Vindic. Canonicar. Scripturar. Vul- 
gate Latine editionis. Rome. 1740. fol. p. CCCLXXXVII. seq. 

3 Evangeliar. quadrupl. T. IJ. p. DCIV. on the reverse no. 34. 

4 “Capitular. R. R. Franc. L. VI. C. 227. “Volumus, et ita missis nostris man- 
dare praecepimus, ut in ecclesiis libri canonici veraces habeantur, sicut jamin alio 
capitulari saepius mandavimus.”’ 

_» 5 This Homiliarium, afterwards improved by Paul Warnefried, has been often 
τ printed under Alcuin’s name: Spirae 1482. Colon. 1530. 1539. 1557. fol. “Igitur,”’ 


ὧν ' oy 
ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. ~~ 273 
It might be inferred from his language that he himself assisted in this 
emendation, nor is it improbable that he did. But the learned monk 
Alcuin had the special charge of it, as history, as well as he himself in 
one of his works, expressly declares.) — ne 
The statement of a biographer of his son, that Charles himself amend- 
ed the four Gospels, has no reference to Alcuin’s edition, which had 
been in circulation for a long time. He is speaking of the pious em- 
ployments with which the monarch occupied the last days of his life, 
viz. alms-giving, reading and emendation.* . 


§ 122. 


A new version from the Greek was not intended on this occasion- 
Charles did not require, nor did Alcuin promise this. Both speak only 
of an emendation of an existing version. We perceive at once in Al- 
cuin’s MSS. the particular version which was the subject of his labors. 
He has prefixed to the Gospels Jerome’s Epistle to Damasus: “‘ Novum 
opus me facere cogis ex veteri;’’ and to all the books Jerome’s prefa- 
ces. 

Blanchini has presented copper-plate specimens of MSS. of this class, 
comprising the beginning of Luke as far as v. 16, the 2d chapter from 
v. 22 to the end, and the whole of the third ;*? which are sufficient to 
give us an idea of the character of this emendation. 


§ 123. 


I was recently permitted to examine a MS. of Alcuin’s edition, which 
contains the Old and New Testament entire, and claims a distinguished 
rank among the MSS. of king Charles’ emendation. Mr. Von Speyer, 
Passavant of Basle, a friend and connoisseur of the monuments of 
ancient art and science, is its fortunate possessor. I found it so re- 
markable for its diplomatic peculiarities, that, as 1 had leisure for the 
purpose, I transcribed it. I cannot treat of it here more particularly 
than is necessary to explain what Alcuin attempted and effected. ; 

A long poem by the copyist ends with the following verses, and certi- 
fies us that we have the edition of Alcuin : 

wt 


says Charles in the Preface, “quia cure nobis est, ut ecclesiarum nostrarum ad 
meliora semper proficiat status. .... ad pernoscenda sacrorum Ἐν ἢ studia 
nostro etiam, quo possumus, invitamus exemplo. Inter que ἐπ οἰ univer- 
sos V. et N. Testamenti libros librariorum imperitid depravatos, Deo in omnibus 
nos adjuvante, examussim correximus.”’ 

1 Sigebert. Gemblac. ad Ann. 790. In the dedication of the 6th book of his 
Commentaries on John, ‘“‘ad Gislam et Columbam :” Alcuin says, “Totius forsan 
Evangelii expositionem direxissem vobis, nisi me occupAsset Domini Regis pre- 
ceptum in emendatione Veteris Novique Testamenti.”’ 


2 Theganus. ed. du Chesne, T. II. Script. Francic. p. 277. 


3 Evangeliar. Quadrupl. P. IJ. Tab. VIII. Luke 1: 1-16, is from Cod. Vallicel- 
lano B. No. 5; the 2d and 3d chapters are from Cod. Basilice S. Pauli extra ur- 
bem, adorned with the portrait of Charles the Great. The hand writing of both 
is so nearly the same as to appear to be by the same person. 


274 ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 


Codicis istius quod sint in corpore sancto 
Depictz formis litterule variis 

Mercedes habeat Christo donante per evum 

Is Carolus qui jam scribe jussit eum (scribere) 
Haec dator eternus cunctorum Christe bonorum 
Munera de donis accipe sancta tuis. 

Que pater Albinus devoto pectore supplex 
Nominis ad ]audem obtulit ecce tui. 

Quem tua perpetuis conservet dextra diebus 
Ut felix tecum vivat in arce poli. 

Pro me quisque legas versus orare memento 
Alchuine dicor ego tu sine fine vale. 


A comparison of Alcuin’s edition of the Old Testament with the 
text of Jerome as exhibited in his Commentaries on the prophets, and 
of the New Testament with Jerome’s text as contained in his Com- 
mentaries on Matthew and the Epistle to the Galatians, convinces us 
that Alcuin intended nothing more than to restore Jerome’s Bible as 
accurately as possible. 

We will prove this by examples. For this purpose we shall present 
the 12th, 13th, and 14th Chapters of Matthew, first according to the Vul- 
gate, (Clement’s edition,) then according to the text of Jerome. Where 
Alcuin agrees with Jerome, we shall denote it by an asterisk. Where 
the asterisk is wanting, he accords with the Vulgate. The readings in 
which he differs from both will be noticed separately. 


VULGATE. JEROME. 
XII. 1. per sata sabato sabbato per sata. * 
2. Licet facere licet eis facere 
4. ei edere ei commedere 
25. divisum contra se in se divisum 
31. blasphemia blasphemize * 
44. eam vacantem vacantem. 
XIII. 14. et adimpletur ut adimpleatur * 
23. fructum affert et facit | fructum facit 
24. simile factum est. simile est 
35. dictum erat dictum est. * 
37. ait illis ait * 
41. mittet mittet ergo 
o4. insynagogis in sinagoga 
XIV. 3. uxorem fratris uxorem Philippi fratris 
9. propter juramentum propter jusjurandum. * 
25. super mare supra mare 
26. super mare supra mare . 
28. ad te venire | venire ad te * 


Readings which differ from both Jerome and the Vulgate are : 


ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 275 


Vuta. Jer. 


XII. 14. perderent eum 
27. vestri erunt 
29. diripiet 


XIU. 


4. volucres coeli 
8. autem ceciderunt 
14. dicentis 


15. videant oculis 
22. seminatus est 
23. centesimum,—sexagesi- 


mum—trigesimum 


43. audiendi audiat 


XIV. 


I. 


ΤΙ. 


III. 


5. volens illum 
18. mihi illos huc 


22. compulit Jesus 
Epistle to the Galatians. 


VuLaGare. 


4. seculo nequam 
5. sic tam cito 
10. an quero 
15. ex utero 
16. evangelizarem 


23. 


aliquando expugnabat 
. iterum ascendi 
seorsum autem 115 


. qui videbantur aliquid esse 
- esset gentilis 
. sed propter subintroductos 


subjectione 


, ab 115 


videbantur esse aliquid 


. sicut et Petro 


. Jacobus, Cephas et Joan- 
nes 
. venisset Cephas 


. illam simulationem 
. recte ambularent 


Cephe 
. iterum hee edifico 
. Vivit autem 
. gratis Christus 
. prescriptus 


. consummemini 


. sicut scriptum est Abraham 


- li sunt 

. promissiones 

. hum si ex lege 
. Cui promiserat 


. Justificemur 


. sumus sub pedagogo 
. semen Abrahe 


ALCUIN. 
eum perderent 
erunt vestri 
diripiat 
volucres 
vero ceciderunt 
dicens 
oculis videant 
est seminatus 
centum—sexaginta 
—triginta 
audiat 
volens eum 
huc mihi illos 
jussit. 


JEROME. 
seculo malo 
tam cito 
aut quero * 
de utero * 
evangelizem 
quondam expugnabat 
rursum ascendi 
seorsum autem his * 
qui videbantur 
esset ex gentibus 
propter subintroductos autem * 
subjectioni 
ab his * 
videbantur 
sicut Petro * 
Petrus, Jacobus et Joannes 


venisset Petrus 

illa simulatione 

recto pede incedant 
Petro 

hec iterum reedifico * 
vivit vero 


Christus gratis 


proscriptus 
consummamini * 
sicut Abraham * 
hi sunt * 


1 repromissiones 


quia si ex lege 

cul promissum erat 
justificaremur 

sub pedagogo sumus 
Abrahe semen. * 


276 ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 


Alcuin’s peculiar.readings. 


‘II. 20. semetipsum et se ipsum 
III. 1. non obedire | non credere 
2. a vobis volo Γ volo ἃ vobis. 
16. qui est Christus quod est Christus 
26. per fidem qua est per fidem. 


From this comparison we deduce the conclusion that Jerome, Alcuin 
and the Vulgate exhibit in the main the same text, differing only in 
slight transpositions, such as sabbato per sata: sata per sabbato,—semen 
Abraha : Abrahe semen; or in such variations as vero for autem; and 
rarely in more important readings, such as centesimum—sexragesimum— 
trigesimum : centun—sexaginta—triginta, non obedire: non credere, and 
the like. 

The most remarkable variation of the MS. of Alcuin’s text from the 
Vulgate relates to 1 John 5:7. “Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in 
celo: pater, verbum et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt.” This passage 
does not appear in Von Speyer’s MS., nor in the Alcuinian MS. at Zu- 
rich. Mabillon, in his Iter I¢alicum, the use of which I have not been 
able to procure, testifies the same in regard to other Latin MSS. of this 
class. 


§ 124. 


Other MSS., likewise, of Alcuin’s edition attest their origin by a lar- 
ger or smaller number of verses. Some, 6. g. the Amsterdam MS., de- 
clare it as follows :? 


Quatuor hi rutilant uno de fonte fluentes, 
Matthei et Marci, Luce liber atque Johannis : 
Sanctus Apostolus Lucas conscripserat Actus : 
Bis septem docti per cartas dogmata Pauli, 
Jacobi, Petri, Jude et pia dicta Johannis, 
Scribitur extremo Johannis in ordine tomus. 
Jusserat hos omnes Christi deductus amore 
Alchuinus Ecclesia famulus conscribere libros. 


Others contain only the last two verses of this postscript.> Others 
still, as the Codex Vadllicellens. in Blanchini, that of the Fathers of the 
Oratory at Rome, and one mentioned by Baronius at the date 778, 
which is now in the Chiesa nuova,’ have the following lines: 


Codicis istius quot sunt in corpore sancto 
Depictez formis litterule variis: 

Mercedes habeat Christo donante per evum 
Tot Carolus Rex, qui scribere jussit eum. 


1 Martini Gerberti Iter Alemanicum, Typis San-Blasianis. 1765. p. 47, 48. 
2 Wetstein Prolegom. in N. T. 
3 The Ziirich Codex in Bidrnstahl, Vol. 5. of his letters, p. 14. 


4 Blanchini Vindic. Canon. Scriptur. p. XXXVI.and p. CCCXXXV. Adler's 
“Biblisch-kritische Reise,” p. 162. 


ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. O77 


Pro me quisque legens versus orare memento, 
Alchuinus dicor : tu sine fine vale. 


Some are more diffuse in this species of epigrammatic verse; others 
contain only the last two lines. 

§ 125. 

This edition was introduced by the royal injunction into the kingdom 
of France, and it was probably the source of all the MSS. which were 
subsequently current on the other side of the Rhine, on the German 
bank, and further on to Pannonia. It was this text which, with some 
variations, as might be expected, was current among us for about eight © 
centuries, until the council of Trent, which by its decrees caused a 
new epoch in respect to the Latin versions. 

Yet during this period, active exertions were made to preserve the 
Latin text in good condition. Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
in the 11th century, amended not only the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testament, but likewise the works of the fathers and other ec- 
clesiastical books. Not content with this, he employed his pupils in the 
same way. His biographer concludes this account with the words : 
““ Hujus emendationis claritate omnis occidui orbis ecclesia, tam Galh- 
cana quam Anglica, gaudet se esse illuminatam.”' This encomium, how- 
ever, has reference, not merely to his biblical labors, but to his critical 
labors generally upon the writings of the fathers, and upon Hymn-books 
and Liturgies. This is necessary to be observed, lest it should be in- 
ferred from the words: “ Hujus emendationis claritate” etc. that he 
prepared a new Recension of the Old and New Testament, which be- 
came the dominant one in France and England. 

In the 12th and 13th centuries, a remarkable zeal for the preservation 
of the Latin text of the Bible began to be exhibited. Several bodies 
composed Correctoria for their own use ; 1. e. they revised some partic- 
ular MS., noting upon its margin where other MSS. did not agree with 
it, and appending short notes in which they criticised the readings admit- 
ted or rejected by them. In deciding, they made use of the writings 
of the fathers, and celebrated ecclesiastics after the time of Charles the 
Great, such as Rhabanus, Haymo of Halberstadt, and others, and fre- 
quently also the Greek text. Nor wasthis all. Care was taken to pre- 
vent inconsiderate corrections. Where the Latin was not exactly gram- 
matical, pains were taken to notice such peculiarities of phraseology, 
that no one might undertake to alter them. Some observations were 
made, too, in respect to punctuation, and even pronunciation. 

Such a Correctorium was projected by the Theological Faculty of 
the University of Paris, probably for the use of the students; and it was 
also adopted or authorized by the Archbishop and Primate of France, 
who had his seat at Sens. It is described by Richard Simon.” 


1 Vita Larfranci in Opp. Paris. 1648. fol. edit. Luce Dacherii. Wetstein’s 
Proleg. in N. T. 


2 “Hist. crit. des versions du N. T.’’ Ch. 9. and ‘‘Nouvelles Observations sur le 
Texte et les Versions du N. T.” P. II. Ch. 1. 


278 ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 


The Dominicans esteemed the authority of the Archbishop but slight 
ly, and in 1236 composed one for themselves, by order of their Provin- 
cial in France, Hugo de St. Cher or Cherfs.!_ Under Humbert de Ro- 
mans, the 5th General of their Order, the Correctorium of Sens was ex- 
pressly rejected in a Genera] Chapter at Paris in 1256.2 They were 
guided in their Correctorium by Charles’ MSS., as we are informed by 
Luke of Bruges, on the authority of the preface of one which he 
frequently used.* 

The Carthusian order, too, in its Correctorium, adopted the Alcuinian 
or Carolinian edition as a standard.4 

Our University-Library contains one of these correctoria, It is that 
of the Franciscan order, as is clear from the first letter of the preface 
to the Old Testament. On its golden ground is painted the Pope, in 
the act of delivering a paper to some members of this order ; two are 
receiving it kneeling, while four others are looking on in the back- 
ground. 

I will select a single specimen of each species of note which it con- 
tains. The first relates to a various reading of Matt. 19:20: omnia hec 
custodivi. In the margin is found: ajuventute med—Greci habent. 
Sed Jeronymus Rhabanus et antiqui non. Another respects the punc- 
tuation of Matt. 14: 9: Et contristatus est rex propter jusjurandum. 
In the margin: sic distinguit Augustinus in omelid. A third relates to 
grammar. Matt. 21:25: Baptismum Johannis unde erat: in the mar- 
gin: Antiqua grammatica est. Hac utitur Ambrosius in Sermon. oct. in 
Ephes. et decimo octavo, etc. An observation on the transposition found 
in some MSS. in 1 John 5: 7, is of special interest : Mot. Quidam libri 
habent hic alium ordinem. Post testimonium spirittis, aque et sanguinis, 
addunt : et hi tres unum sunt, et pergunt sic: et tres sunt, qui testimo- 
nium dant in colo, etc. 

This correctorium, in criticising the text, sometimes cites those fath- 
ers whose quotations exhibit the text as it was in the time of Jerome, 
such as Augustine and Ambrose. If this was done in others like- 
wise, the correctoria themselves contributed to deform the text of Je- 
rome and Alcuin by the introduction of foreign materials. 

William Lindan speaks of a much earlier correctorium, on the authority 
of MS. accounts in the possession of Cardinal Bessarion, which he prob- 
ably obtained from the Vatican Library, and which refer to the year 
1144: Sed pre ceteris equidem desiderarim illud, quod ante annos 400 


1 Martene, Thesaur. nov. Anecdot. T. IV. p. 1676. Statut. 34. Capit. gener. 
Dominic. 


2 Martene loc. cit. p. 1715. Statut. 23. Capit. gener. Item correctiones biblie 
Senonensis non adprobamus, nec volumus, quod fratres innitantur illi correcti- 
oni etc. 


3 Luce Burgens. Notationes in Sac. Biblia. 1584. apud Plantin. 4. Preef. p. 22. 
“Exemplar..... emendatum ante trecentos annos ex Caroli magni Bibliis un- 
dequaque collectis, jussu, ut prefatio habet, Ε΄. Jordani magistri ordinis Preedica- 
torum et F. Hugonis prioris provincialis in Francia a Predicatoribus S. Domini- 
ci fratribus.”’ 

4 Wilh. Lindanus, De optimo Scripturas interpret. genere. L. III. C. 3. “Tale 
quondam vidimus (correctorium) pervetustum in Carthusia Zeelhemensi, juxta 
Diesthemium sitA, quod Biblia ad codices Caroli magni perdiligenter castigatos 
notabat emendanda.” : 


ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 279 


Rome Nicolaus δ. Damasi Diaconus scripsit maxima, ut apparet, dili- 
gentid, ubi conqueritur, Lustrans armaria, inquiens, nequibam hoc ad- 
ipisci, veracia scilicet exemplaria invenire, quia et quam a doctissimis 
viris dicebantur correcta, unoquoque in suo sensu abundante, adeo dis- 
crepabant, ut pene quot codices, tot exemplaria reperirem, usque adeo 
etiam millesimo fere post interpretationem Hieronymi anno, codices men- 
 dosi atque corrupti erant, etc. (De optimo Scripturas interpret. genere 
L. III. c. 3. Comp. L. I. ¢. 5.) 

It must be borne in mind that Nicholas is speaking of Rome and its 
vicinity, where Charles’ emendation may not have been acknowledged. 
In France, where it was predominant, the text, many as were the alter- 
ations it experienced, was more uniform and harmonious in its different 


MSS. 


§ 126. 


As the MSS. differed from each other so exceedingly, the printed edi- 
tions of the 15th and 16th centuries could not well be better in this res- 
pect than the MSS. from which they were derived. This discrepancy 
excited special attention in the 16th century, and more than ever when 
the council of Trent was convened. The editions of Robert Ste- 
phens, and that of Colinzus in 1541, the preface to which contains bitter 
complaints in regard to the errors of the Vulgate, directed the attention 
of many to the subject. ‘The principal occasion of this was the recent 
publication of the Hebrew and Greek text, and the awakening study of 
biblical criticism, which necessarily exposed the received church-ver- 
sion to unfavorable comparisons. ; 

The council of Trent perceived that the sources whence arguments 
might be drawn must be agreed upon, before any idea of unity in doc- 
trine could be indulged. It was even seriously proposed to make use 
for this purpose of a particular Hebrew and Greek MS., and to translate 
it into Latin for the benefit of such as were unskilled in the languages.? 
But this would have been to present to the multitude a new source of 
controversies, while there was good reason rather to attempt to arrest 
further innovations, and at least to unite those who were still adherents 
to the ancient doctrinal belief. In this view it was most prudent to con- 
firm the authority of the received church-version, as was done by the 
Synod. (Sess. IV. Decret. 2.) ‘“Statuit et declarat hac sancta Synodus, 
ut hec vetus et vulgata editio, que longo tot seculorum usu in Ecclesia 
ipsd probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, predicationibus, 
aut expositionibus, pro authentica habeatur : ut eam nemo rejicere quovis 
pretextu audeat vel presumat.” 

Great pains have been taken to explain this decree in sucha way as not 
to depreciate the study of the original languages. The meaning is plainly 
this. As in civil affairs an authentic instrument is valid evidence, so in 
public religious matters the Vulgate is a document from which valid ar- 
gument may be drawn, without prejudice, however, to other documents. 
But this is not a prescription of doctrine, and from its nature could 
not be; it is a decree on a point of discipline, having reference to the 
circumstances of the times in which it was issued. ᾽ 


----- —$—$—$$—$ “------...-- τ τ θορἰὐοὔὦὐ.ὕ 


1 Patavicini Hist. Conc. Trident. L. VI. ς. 15. 


280 ALCUIN’S EMENDATION, 


Among the many editions, no two of which agreed with each other, 
it was necessary now to fix upon one to which the preeminence should 
belong, or, in default of any such edition, to agree in respect to the pre- 
paration of one. For the present the Synod merely ordained : “‘ ut post- 
hdc Sacra Scriptura, potissimum vero hac ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, 
quam emendatissime imprimatur.” οἰ 


§ 127. 


The theologians of Lyons, and among them Hentenius in particular, 
now set about preparing a corrected edition, which appeared as early 
as the next year, 1547. But the Holy Seeat Rome had, it would seem, 
reserved this business for itself; and PiusIV and V nominated persons 
to whom it was entrusted. Sixtus V, whose ardent disposition could 
not endure the slow progress in executing the work, brought it toa 
close,! and announced it as finished in a bull of March 1, 1589. 

He caused a printing press to be set up in the Vatican expressly for 
the edition, and he himself corrected it, after it was printed, as he says 
in his Papal bull: ‘‘Novam intereatypographiam in Apostolico Vaticano 
palatio nostro ad id potissimum magnifice exstruximus.... - eaque 
res quo magis incorrupte perficeretur, nostrd nos ipsi manu correximus, 
st qua prelo vitia obrepserant,” etc. The title-page of the book is dated 
one year later than this bull, and is as follows: “ Biblia Sacra Vulgate 
editionis tribus tomis distincta. Roma, ex typographia Apostolica Va- 
ticand. M.D. XC.” fol. After this comes a second title-page, which is 
engraved and represents Abraham’s sacrifice. On its upper border are 
the words: “ Biblia Sacra Vulgate editionis ad concilit Tridentini 
prescriptum emendata et a Sitto V. P. M. recognita et approbata.” 
Beneath is a border with the words: accipe et devora. 

The work, from the condition in which it appeared, particularly under 
existing circumstances, afforded opportunity of finding fault with it to 
every one who wished to do so. Many passages, especially in the New 
Testament, were found covered over with small bits of paper on which 
the corrections were printed ; others were erased, or merely altered with 
the pen. This, in a book which was to have a high and commanding 
authority, must have displeased members of the Romish Church, as 
well as Protestants. . 

Not long afterwards, a learned Englishman made a collection of 
these passages,” and another scholar enlarged the catalogue;? and 
by examining several copies any one might easily make a further con- 
tribution to it, for the alterations are not uniform in all the copies. 

In the Royal Library at Vienna there are two copies; one is on very 
large, the other on somewhat smaller paper. In one of them, in Gen. 
41: 10, (e. g.) the word pecoribus is not covered over; in the other, a 
bit of paper is pasted over it, on which is found prioribus. As to the 
New Testament, in both copies at Mark 10: 1 there is a bit of paper 


1 Pref. in Ed. Clem. VIII. “Τὴ multis” etc. 

2 “ Bellum papale, sive concordia discors Sixti quinti et Clementis octavi circa 
Hieronymianam editionem, auctore Thoma James,” etc. Londini, 1600. 4to. 

3 “ Histoire de la Bible de Sixte quint par Prosper Marchand,” in Schelhorn’s 
“ Amenitates Litterar.”’ Tom. IV. p. 433. seq. 


ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 281 
with the word inde. In Acts 7:8, et Isaac et Jacob, the last et is 
erased in one MS., and in the other the place is painted of a yellowish 
color. In Tit. 2: 2, pudiet has been erased in one MS., and in the other 
changed into pudici with a pen. At Rev. 3:7, one has a bit of paper 
pasted on with the word scribe ; in the other the word scribe is printed 
correctly. In Rey. 3: 12, one reads scribe ; in the other there is a bit 
of paper on which scribe is printed. Everything is nearly as it was in 
τ Prosper Marchand’s copy. 

How it happened that the book appeared in this condition before a 
public so strongly disposed to criticise it with severity, we will not now 
enquire. Thus much, however, we can see, viz. that this prince, encom- 
passed as he was by numerous and weighty affairs, did more than could 
have been expected of him, and that he was not so well served as he 
anticipated. Sixtus died in August of the same year, and left to his 
successors the honor of preparing a new work to take the place of this. 


§ 128. 

Gregory XIV undertook the task anew, and appointed for its exe- 
cution a body of cardinals and learned men, among whom Bellarmine 
obtained precedence. Gregory did not see the work completed ; but it 
appeared soon after Clement VIII., who succeeded him, was instated 
in the popedom. 

There was, however, a great difficulty tosurmount.. Was it expedient 
to depreciate the Sixtine edition by declaring it faulty? Both the new 
work and the papal authority would certainly gain nothing by this 
in public estimation. Should it be pronounced correct? Why then 
prepare another? In this dilemma, Bellarmine is said to have found out 
a middle course, and to have proposed that all the blame should be laid 
upon the printer, so as to vindicate the reputation of Sixtus and his 
successors. 

Sixtus is thus exculpated in the preface to this second edition: 
““ Quod cum jam esset excusum, et ut in lucem emitteretur, idem , Pon- 
tifex (Sixtus) operam daret, animadvertens non paucain sacra Biblia 
preli vitio irrepsisse, ‘que iteratd diligentiad indigere viderentur, totum 
opus sub incudem revocandum censuit atquedecrevit. Id vero cum morte 
preventus prestare non potuisset, Gregorius XIV,” etc. Bellarmine 
was the author of the preface ;! and it is said to have been the cause of 
his canonization. Beyond a doubt the greater part of the corrections 
in the Sixtine Bible were attributable to the printer’s mistakes; but it 
would be no more than we might expect from the learning and rash 


1 Vita del Cardinale Roberto Bellarmino, composta dal P. Giacomo Fuligatti, 
in Roma. 1624. 4to. capit. 13. 


2 Le Bret, Dissert. Theol. de usu versionis Lat. Vet. in Ecclesia Christ. Tu- 
bing. 1786. δ. 23. p.54. That the statement is correct, is proved by the following 
book: “οι! degl. infrascritti eminentissimi Signori Cardinali, B. Gregorio 
Barbarigo, Gieronimo Casanate, Decio Azzolini, Domenico Passionei, nella 
causa della Beatificatione de venerabile servo di Dio Card. Roberto Bellarmino, 
Seconda editione. In Ferrara 1762. Si vende in Venezia al insegne di Demos- 
thene.” Le Bret saw an earlier edition of it. (Venet. 1761.) The Votum of Card. 
Passionei is in MS. in the Bibliotheca Angelica, to which the Cardinal presented 


5 


his valuable collection of books. i τῇ . 
36 


282 ALCUIN’S EMENDATION. 


self-confidence of Sixtus, if he now and then opposed the opinion of the ᾿ 
censors, and amended with his own hand against their judgment. But 
however this may be, so much is clear, either that it was not intended 
in the second edition to give the text of Sixtus as accurately as possible, 
or that the intention miscarried; for the edition contains several hun- 
dred deviations from the former. 

The second edition, which was the model of the present Vulgate 
text, appeared, like the first, with two title-pages, one printed, the other 
engraved. ‘The printed one is as follows: ‘‘ Biblia Sacra Vulgate 
editionis, Romeex Typographia Apostolicé Vaticand. M. Ὁ. XCIL.” 
The engraved page is the same as that of the Sixtine edition ; so is the 
title upon it: ‘ Biblia Sacra Vulgate editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. 
Maz. jussu recognita atque edita.’ Beneath, accipe et devora, The Pre- 
fatioad Lectorem comes next. “In multis magnisque beneficiis, etc.” 
Then follows the Decretum concilit Tridentini ; then the Bull: Clem- 
ens P. octavus ad perpetuam ret memoriam: “‘Cum sacrorum Bibliorum 
Vulgate editionis textus, etc.” “dat. Rome apud S. Petrum sub annulo 
piscatoris die 9. Novembris 1592.” 

In the following year, 1593, a quarto edition of it was issued from the 
Vatican Press. These two editions are not often met with; and the 
Sixtine edition is one of the greatest typographical rarities, either be- 
cause but few copies were published, or because they were gradually 
called in,! or on both accounts. 


§ 129. 


The preface of Bellarmine is occupied principally in detailing the 
plan of the Censors and the rules they prescribed to themselves. Yet 
he has not taken pains always to give aclear and definite account of 
them. 

One would think that the object was the restoration of the Vulgate 
to its original condition : “Zpsam veterem, ac vulgatam editionem Lat. a 
mendis veterum librariorum, nec non pravarum emendationum erroribus 
repurgatam, sue pristine integritati ac puritati, quoad gus fieri potuit, 
restituere.’ The text which Jerome (from whom the expression is bor- 
rowed,) calls communem et vulgatam, was that which was usual before 
his time. 

In another place Bellarmine seems to assert, that the intention was to 
revise Jerome’s Recension and introduce it into general use: “ Quare 
non immerito Catholica Ecclesia S. Hieronymum Doctorem maximum 
atque ad Scripturas sacras interpretandas divinitus excitatum ita cele- 
brat, ut jam difficile non sit illorum omnium damnare judicitum, qui vel 
tam eximit Doctoris lucubrationibus non acquiescunt, vel etiam melhora, 
aut certe paria se praestare confidunt. Ceterum ne tam fidelis transla- 
tio, etc. 

This was actually the case, if, in determining the text, the censors 
consulted Rhabanus, Haymo, Anselm, Peter Damiani, and other writers 
whom they enumerate; for these follow in their works the Carolinian 
MSS., which exhibit Jerome’s text as corrected by Alcuin. 


τ 


2 Le Bret Dissert. de usu vers. Lat. vet. in θεὲς ]65. ὃ 23. p. 53. " 


GOTHIC VERSION. 283 


They, however, used very great caution ; designedly passing over ma-. 
ny things which required correction : “‘ In hac tamen pervulgatd lec- 
tione sicut nonnulla consulto mutata, ita etiam.alia, que mutanda vide- 


bantur, consulto immutata relicta sunt.” ° 


GOTHIC VERSION. 


§ 130. 


For a long time before the thirty years’ war broke out, the Abbey of 
Werden in Westphalia contained a MS. of the four Gospels, written in 
an old German dialect in letters of silver.? In order that this docu- 
ment might be withdrawn from the danger which threatened it, it was 
deposited for safe keeping with other valuables at Prague; but here, not 
many months before the peace, it fell into the hands of the Swedes 
when, in 1748, under General Konigsmark, they unexpectedly entered 
Kleinseite, or Little Prague. It was now deposited in the Royal Libra- 
ry at Stockholm, and was subsequently, it is probable, presented to the 
celebrated Isaac Voss by Queen Christina, whose special favor he en- 
joyed. Others will have it that he made a present of it to himself. 

During the Westphalian negotiations for peace, this valuable docu- 
ment came to the knowledge of Count Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie, 
who purchased it of Voss for 400 rix dollars, and gave it for safe keeping 
to the University of Upsal, where it is now preserved. 

With the MS. the Count also deposited a very faithful transcript of it, 
in which the original was sedulously copied in the same number of pa- 
ges, line for line and letter for letter. One Derrer (it is not known 
when or where) executed this toilsome task. Iam convinced by care- 
ful investigation that he was not the famous lawyer of that name who 


1 The history of the Latin version, especially of its latest period, has been 
presented by Dr. Leander Van Ess in a Jearned work, entitled : ‘“Pragmatisch- 
kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allgemeinen, und zunachst in Beziehung 
auf das Trientische Decret. Tubingen, 1824.” 8vo. 


2 We have the history of this MS. in Ihre’s “ Dissertat. I. de Cod. Argent.’ 
§ 14, 15,and in Zahn’s “Historisch-kritische Einleit. in Ulfilas Bibluberset- 
zung,” p. 39—46. 

3 Such is the Swedish account, to which J give the preference above other re- 
ports and surmises. (Ihre, Dissert. I. loc. cit.) Ihre considers the charge a- 
gainst Voss of an unauthorized appropriation of the MS. as by no means proved, 
although he must have known what Nettelblatt, 36 years before, had published 
respecting it. How, moreover, could Junius, if his nephew had stolen the book, 
say in the dedication to De la Gardie which he prefixed to his Ulfilas : ‘‘Habeo 
sane quod calo imputem ; siquidem intelligo immortalis Dei nutu memoratum codi- 
cem ad manus meas perlatum?”’ Or, if Voss wasa thief, how could Ulitius say in the 
Carmen, addressed to De la Gardie, which is prefixed to Junius’ Glossar. Gothic : 


‘‘ Si Vossi memor est, et honorat Suedia nomen, 
(Lucidius docto non micat orbe jubar) 
Tantus hic et tanti nec avunculus esse nepotis 
Ignotus vestris, neve latere, potest. af 
Ille Palatinis pluteis que promserat ante, 
Hie tibi nune cultu splendidiore refert.’’ 


284 , GOTHIC VERSION. Σ 


adorned our University during the first half of the 16th century. Thi 
transcript was destroyed in the great fire at Upsal in 1702. 


§ 18}. 


Junius obtained the use of the Codex from his nephew, and published 
it in 1665, in Gothic letters cast expressly for the purpose. Whether 
Junius found Derrer’s transcript already in existence, or himself caus- 
ed itto be made, is uncertain ; but that he industriously consulted the 
Codex itself, we are told by Thomas Marshall, who lived with Junius 
and assisted him while the work was preparing for the press! Junius 
even complains of the difficulty he had in tracing and making out the 
faded characters.” 

In 1621, Stirnhelm published a second edition, from Derrer’s trans- 
cript, in Latin characters. He, however, sometimes consulted the orig- 
inal.* In 1684, a reprint of Junius’ edition appeared at Amsterdam 
with the same type, the same title, and in the same form. Perhaps there 
was only ἃ new title-page printed, in order to sell the remainder of the 
first edition under the name of another publisher. Archbishop Ben- 
zel afterwards took a [ΠΟΥ to the ancient document, and made prepa- 
rations for a new edition, but did not live to see the fruit of his toil. Ed- 
ward Lye published the edition with ability and fidelity. It seems that 
the Archbishop even purposed to have the whole Codex copied in wood- 
cuts, of which I have in my possession a well executed specimen.* 
Meanwhile Ihre, who lived in the neighborhood of the valuable docu- 
ment, devoted his attention to it; but, as his eyesight failed him, he em- 
ployed a young man, Ehrich Sotberg, to compare the editions of Junius 
and Benzel with the original repeatedly, and published the amendments 
thus obtained in a work entitled ‘‘ Ulphilas illustratus.”* He also caused 
a very exact transcript of the Codex to be made for his own use. 

Not succeeding in executing a new edition, he sent this transcript to 
Bisching, that he might prepare one from it. From Busching the tran- 
script passed to Heynatz. Heynatz lent it to Zahn, a clergyman, 
who fortunately succeeded in publishing his Ulfilas from it.° . The text 


1 At the end of his Notes on Mark, p. 44. a 
2 In the preface to the annexed Gothicum Glossarium. 


3 Ihre, Dissert. I. De. Cod. Argent. § 15. F 
4 Ulfiliani codicis sculptura lignea edendi specimen Benzelianum. Lincopis 
excusum cura Friderici Arendt. MDCCCYV. Cal. Jan. ΩΝ 


5 This and several treatises of Ihre relating to the Codex, its grammar, idioms, 
etc. have been published, together with several others on this subject, by Bu- 
sching, the geographer, in one collection: ‘“‘Johannis ab ‘Ihre scripta versionem 
Ulphilanam et linguam Moeso-Guthicam illustrantia . . , und cum aliis scriptiis 
similis argumenti, edita ab Ant. Frid. Biisching. Berolini. 1773.” 4to. 


6 All the editions enumerated are derived from the same source. As each ed- 
itor states on the title-page what he has done to facilitate the explanation and 
better understanding of the document, we will here cite the editions with the 
Cbesrnees entire. ᾿ 

1, “Quatuor D. Ν. Jesu Christi Evangeliorum Versiones perantique due, 
Gothica scilicet et Anglo-Saxonica, quarum illam ex celeberrimo Codice Ar- 

enteo nunc primum deprompsit Franc. Junius, T. F., hance ex codicibus 

SS. collatis emendatius recudi curavit Thomas Mareschallus, Anglus: cu- 
jus etiany observationes in utramque versionsm subnectuntur. Accessit et 


GOTHIC VERSION. 285 
is given with care; the grammatical and critical observations subjoined 


in the lower margin are brief, to the point, and well-conceived, and the 
whole of the rich apparatus of the book is valuable. 


§ 132. 


The original is called Codex Argenteus from its letters, which are large, ~ 
regular and beautiful uncial characters of silver, on very fine purple- -ἐ 


colored parchment, in large quarto.. The initial lines of the Gospels and 
the first line of every section are in gold letters. Below, between col- 
umns drawn in barbarous taste according to neither of the known orders 
of architecture, are inserted the Canons of Eusebius, and at the side 
are appended the numbers referring to them. The Gospels are in the 
following order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. 

The letters donot appear to have been written with a pen or reed, but 
to have been impressed by means of carved or cast stamps, nearly in 
the same way as book-binders put titles upon the backs of books in 
gold or silver. The perfect uniformity of the letters, the indentations 
which they make in the page, the traces of paste sometimes visible be- 
tween the silver and the parchment—all this, of which Ihre has ad- 
duced evidence, and of which he gives an accountin the preface to 
“ Ulphilas illustratus,” renders such a supposition credible, whatever 
may be said to the contrary by hasty travellers and superficial ob- 
servers, 

Some are disposed to ascribe these appearances to ink ; against which 
I must observe that not long since I saw the purple MSS. written in 


Glossarium Gothicum : cui premittitur alphabetum Gothicum, Runicum etc. 
opera. ejusdem Franc. Junii. Dord. 1605.” in 4to. 


2. “D. N. Jesu Christi SS. Evangelia ab Ulfila Gothorum in Masia episcopo, 
circa annum a nato Christo CCCLX. ex Greco Gothice translata, nunc cum 
parallelis versionibus, Sueo-Gothica, Norreana seu Islandica, et vulgata Latina 
edita, accedit Franc. Junii glossarium Gothicum, lingua Sueo-Gothicad moderna 
et antiqua locupletatum et illustratum, curd et studio Georgii Stirnhielmii. 
Stockholm. 1671.” 4to. ᾿ 


3. Amstelodami. 1648. This has the same title as the first. 


4. “ Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Gothica, ex codice argenteo emendata at- 
que suppleta, cum interpretatione Latina et annotationibus Erici Benzelii non 
ita pridem Archiep. Upsaliensis edidit, observationes suas adjecit, et grammati- 
cam Gothicam premisit Edwardus Lye A.M. Oxonii e typographeo Claren- 
doniano MDCCL.” 4to. [tis well printed with the characters of ihe Cod. argent., 
and is scarce. 


5. “Ulfilas Gothische Bibeliiversetzung, die alteste germanische Urkunde, nach 
Threns Text, mit einer grammatisch-wdrtlichen lateinischen Uebersetzung zwis- 
chen den Zeilen, sammt einer Sprachlehre uitd einem Glossar, ausgearbeitet 
von Friederich Karl Fulda, weiland Pfarrer in Ensingen im Wurtembergischen ; 
das Glossar umgearbeitet von W. F. H. Reinwald, Herzog]. Sachs. Rath und 
Oberbibliothekar in Meiningen, und den Text nach Ihrens genauer Abschrift 
der silbernen Handschrift in Upsal, sorgfiltig berichtigt, die Uebersetzung und 
Sprachlehre verbessert und erganzt, auch mit Ihrens lateinischer Uebers tang 
neben dem Texte, und mit einer vollstindigen Kritik und Erlauterung in. 
merkungen unter demselben, sammt einer historisch-kritischen Einleitung ver- 
sehen und herausgegeben von Johann Christian Zahn, Prediger in Delitz an der 
Saale bey Weissenfels in Sachsen. Auf Kosten des Herausgebers. Weissenfels. 
1805." 4to. 


. ef" 


286 GOTHIC VERSION. 


silver which are at Brescia and Verona, and very beautiful fragments of 
Matthew’s Gospel in the Vatican Library, and nowhere discovered any 
indentations or appearance of paste. 

The pages of this MS. do not follow one another in regular order, 
and many are wanting. Matthew begins at 5: 15; and there is a 
chasm from 6: 32 to 7: 12. From 10: 1—23, there isa second. From 
11: 25, there is a chasm as far as 26: 70. Then all the last chapter is 
wanting. In Mark are wanting, from 6: 31—54; from 12: 38—13: 
18, from 13: 29—14: 5, from 14: 16—41, from 16: 12 to the end. © 
In Luke, from 10: 30—14: 9, from 16: 24—17: 3, from 20: 37 to the 
end. John begins with 5: 45; then there are chasms from 11: 47—12: 
1, from 12: 49—13: 11, from 19: 13, to the end. Besides this, indi- 
vidual verses have here and there suffered mutilations which we will not 
here enumerate. 


§ 133. 


Some years after the publication of Lye’s edition of the Gospels, 
Counsellor Knittel, in examining a MS. in the Library at Wolfenbittel, 
which was written about the 9th century in Spain, and contains the well- 
known Origines of Isidore of Seville, observed that beneath some pa- 
ges of this MS. there was concealed an older writing which had been 
washed off to write Isidore’s work in its stead. After much pains he 
succeeded in deciphering the older characters. Now these were for- 
tunately fragments of the Epistle to the Romans, in the same language 
and character as the Codex of Upsal, with the old Latin version antece- 
dent to Jerome by the side of the text. The fragments discovered are 
the following: Rom. 11: 33, 34, 35, 36; 12: 1—5 and 17—21; 13:1 
—5; 14: 9—20; and, lastly, 15: 3—18, inclusive. Knittel published 
them in 1762, with notes and explanations.! 

The little already possessed of the Epistles of Paul was highly prized 
ἃ5 ἃ gift of good fortune, and it was scarcely hoped that there would be 
any important increase of it in future, when, in 1817, Angelo Maio 
gave an account of considerable portions of the Gothic version which 
he had discovered in the Ambrosian Library. 

Beneath the Homilies of Gregory the Great on Ezekiel, written in 
the 8th century, he had perceived older characters, like those of Cod. 
Argenteus, which had been washed off. Closer scrutiny afforded him 
the joyful assurance that he had obtained important fragments, in the 
Gothic language, of all Paul’s Epistles, except the two to the Thessa- 
lonians and the Hpistle to the Hebrews. A second MS., of the 9th 
century, perhaps, which contained Jerome’s Exposition of Isaiah, like- 


1 “Ulphile Versionem Gothicam nonnullorum capitum epistole Pauli ad Ro- 
manos 6 littura MS. rescripti bibliothece Guelpherbytane cum variis monumen- 
tis ineditis eruit, commentatus est, deditque foras Franc. Ant. Knittel. Brunovici. 
1762.” 4to. Ihre published them again, with new remarks, under the following 
title : ‘ Fragmenta versionis Ulphilane, continentia particulas aliquot epistole 
Pauli ad Romanos, haud pridem ex codice rescripto biblioth. Guelferb. eruta, et 
a Fr. Ant. Knittel, Archidiac. edita, nunc cum aliquot annotationibus typis reddi- 
ta a Joanne Ihre etc. Upsalie. 1763.” 4to. This last is reprinted in Bisching's 
eollection, P. 97. seq.—Zahn, also, has appended it to his Ulfilas. , 


GOTHIC VERSION. Q87 


wise concealed the Gothic text of Paul’s Epistles, excepting the Epistle 
to the Romans and the Hebrews. The Pauline Epistles thus concealed , 
beneath Jerome’s work are not a supplementary portion of the former, 
but were originally an independent Codex. 

At the end of a Latin MS. of the four Gospels Maio found bound with 
it a leaf from an older Codex. On this leaf, likewise, containing a frag- 
ment of the Latin version of Matthew, he perceived Gothic characters 
which had been partially expunged. It contained two fragments of 
Matthew, viz. 25: 388—26: 3, and 26: 65—27th Chap.; the first of 
which, and the first six verses of the second, (26: 65—71,) supply chasms 
in the Cod. Argent. 

In the first mentioned MS. of the Homilies of Gregory, there was 
found also, with the Pauline Epistles, a fragment of a Gothic calendar 
partially expunged. In other MSS. were discovered some fragments 
of the Old ‘Testament, and a Gothic Homily, rich in biblical quotations, 
from which were obtained some verses that are wanting in Cod. Ar- 

ent. 

Count Carlo Ottavio Castilioni took the most lively interest in the 
discovery, and assisted Angelo Maio by his knowledge of the German 
language, in the labors required by the publication. Both jointly wrote 
a detailed account of the discoveries which had been made, described 
the MSS. in which these treasures were hidden, and presented specimens 
of the Gothic documents discovered.'. When Maio was called to the 
Vatican Library, and obeyed the call thither, the whole burden of the 
work fell upon Count Castilioni, and on this account the publication 
has been delayed longer than was anticipated by the two learned schol- 
ars, and longer than we could wish. 


§ 184. 


The language of these documents is that of an ancient people who 
formerly dwelt very far north ; for they were accustomed to reckon their 
years by winters. Twelve years, in Matt. 9: 20 and Luke 2: 42, are 
TVALIB VINTRUS; soin Luke 8: 42. Having no word for lilies, 
they made use of the general term BLOMANS, (Germ. Blumen, 
flowers,) in Matt. 8: 28. 

They, however, had come in contact with the Greeks; so that cer- 
tain Greek words and expressions were current among them, which the 
translator of the Gospels could retain, even when they might be trans- 
lated into his own language. It is certain that the word Lohn was in 
his language ; it occurs in Luke 6:32, and elsewhere: WHA IZVIS 
LAUNEIST. Yet where μεσϑός occurs in the Greek text, he almost 
always retains it as a familiar term. (MIZDO, Matt. 5: 46. 6: 3. Luke 
6:23, &c.) His nation had a word denoting basket ; it appears in 
Mark 8: 19, John 6: 13, 'TAINJONS, or Zainen in the popular lan- 
guage of our country. Yet the translator sometimes used instead of it 
the Greek word σπυρίδας, SPVREIDANS. (Mark 8: 8, 20.) Fora 


1 Ulphile partium ineditarum in Ambrosianis palimpsestis ab Angelo Maio. 
repertarum specimen conjunctis curis ejusdem Maii et Caroli Octavii Castilionei 


editum. Mediolani Regiis typis MDCCCXIX. 4to. 


288 GOTHIC VERSION. 


royal mandate, they had a technical word derived from the Greek 
γράφω, GAGREFTS. (Luke 2: 1.) They had expressions for dinner 
and supper (Luke 14: 12., Mark 6: 21); but this does not prevent him 
from using the Greek δογή for a banquet, (Luke 5: 29,) δοχὴν με- 
yédnv—DAUHT MIKILA. It was probably only from the want 
of a suitable word that he could not avoid the Greek Supe 
MIAMIN, in Luke 1: 10. 

This people, however, came in closer contact with nations which 
spoke the Latin language, as is evident from the many Latin words 
which to all appearance were quite common among the readers of this 
version. 170 seaé one’s self at table, is with them AMAKUMBIAN 
(Mark 2: 15. 6: 22, Luke 5: 29, and in 7: 49, MI'PANAKUMBIAN) ; 
drinking-vessels are AURKIE, urcet (Mark 7: δ); vinegar, is AKE- 
TIS (Matt. 27: 48., Mark 15: '36) ; a money-chest is ARKA (John 
13: 29); gold, tons is called AIZ, es (Mark 6: 8). Bandages are 
FASKIE (John 11: 44): Soldiers, MILITONDANS (Luke 3: 14, 
where also the word ANNOM for annona occurs); a prison is termed 
KARKARA (Matt, 5: 25. 11:2. Mark 6: 17). Some expressions are 
common to both Greeks and Romans, as AROMATA, Mark 16: 1, 
PARAKLETUS, John 14: 25. 

"Several of these words might have been avoided by the translator, ἐν 
have been rendered by such as were peculiar to his own language, if 
he had not been convinced that they would all be well understood by 
his countrymen. ‘They too seated themselves or reclined at meals; 
they too had waterpots; thay had a peculiar expression for gold, of fre- 
quent occurrence; they too had a word designating a soldier; and 
hence nothing could induce him to have recourse to Latin words, but 
the wsus loquendi of his nation and the knowledge that such expressions 
were current and intelligible among them. 

So much of the history of this people is contained in their very lan- 

guage. If we now look at the various German tribes, we shall find 
none which had so much intercourse with both Greeks and Romans, 
* that it could have had such an influence upon their language, except 
_ the Goths. After the time of Constantine, they were very closely con- 
nected with the Eastern empire, and subsequently took possession of 
the Roman provinces along the Danube, from which they ei to es- 
tablish two new kingdoms in the Roman territory. ς 

οἷ ᾿. xe; ὃ 

) Κ 
; Ἂν ν ᾧ 195. οἰ νά ἕῳ 

Certain learned men probably paid no attention to these considera 
tions, when they broached the idea that this version might be Franc 
conian. 

The Franks had no version of the Bible in their language until the 
time of Ottfried von Weissenburg. Besides, the structure of the Fran- 
conian language is very different from that of the language of the 
Argent., particularly inthe union of the verbs fo be and to he 
auxiliaries in the formation of certain tenses; in the formation of the 
Passive voice ; and in respect to the use of the dual number, which is 
unknown to the Franconian. When this Introduction first appeared, 
it was necessary that all this should be treated in detail, and much more 


a4 


GOTHIC VERSION, 289 


taken into consideration, in order to determine the people of Germany 
to whom the two documents at Upsal and Wolfenbiittel belonged. We 
are now spared these details; for the point has been since determined 
beyond dispute. 

The certificate preserved in the Episcopal archives at Arezzo, con- 
taining a subscription of five lines in letters similar tothose of the Cod. 
Argent., has long been known. The first who published it was Doni ;! 
he did not, however, adhere closely to the characters, but altered them 
so as to be more like printed letters. Lye, Knittel and Ihre, who con- 
fided in him, repeated his errors. The Abate Marini, a respectable 
scholar, examined the original anew, and published it with great accu- 
racy.” Wesee from this edition that the characters are really the same 
as those of the Cod. Argent.; not indeed elegantly written, but made 
by an unskilful penman. But neither does this document afford us any 
explanation as to the people among whom the characters were current; 
for it contains no trace or hint of what nation the persons were who 
executed it. 

The valuable relic at Naples is more decisive. It was formerly in the 
archives della SS. Annunciata, and is now in the Royal Library at 
Naples, in the Hall of MSS., where it is suspended behind glass in a 
frame at a window which fronts the principal street. Sabbatini first pub- 
lished it. Ihre attempted to explain it,t and after him Zahn.> But 
neither was this relic copied with care and fidelity. Marini® first gained 
the credit of giving an accurate representation of it. Lastly, Count Si- 
erakowski had it copied anew from the original and engraved ; but I could 
find no copies of it in the print-shops or bookstores of Italy. 

This document is a deed of sale, on Egyptian papyrus, of about the 
year 551, signed by ail the clergy of the Guthic church of St. Anasta- 
sia (aclisie Gotice Sancte Anastasie). Of the signatures, which occu- 
py 66 lines, 10 lines are written in the characters which were called 
Gothic, only by conjecture till this document was discovered. From 
this we learn what people possessed these characters. They are by no 
means beautifully written ; yet the characters and the language of the 
Upsal Codex are not to be mistaken. 

Among the confirmatory documents we ought to reckon the fragments 
discovered by Maio of a calendar written with the same letters as the 


1 Donii inseriptiones antique, edit. ab Ant. Fr. Gorio. Florentiz, 1731, p. 
409. 

2 “JT Ῥαργτῖ diplomatici raccolti ed illustratid’ all’ Abate Gaetano Marini, 
custode della Bib. Vat. 6 Prefeto degli archivi secreti della santa sede in 

ma MDCCCYV. nella Stamparia della S. Congreg. de prop. fide. N. CXVIII. 
Ρ. 179, 80. . 

3.4.1] vetusto calendario Neapolitano scoverto; con varie note illustrato dal 
Ludovico Sabbatini d’Anfora Neap. 1744.” 4to. p. 101—106. 


4 Monument. vet. lingue Ostrogoth. Neapoli....repertum, illustratum a 
Jo. thre in “ Novis Actis Societat. Scient. Upsaliensis.’ Vol. 11. Ups. 1780,” 
p. 1—31. 

5 Versuch, einer Erklarung der gothischen Sprachiiberreste in Neapel und 
Arezzo, als eine Einladungsschrift und Beylage zum Ulfilas. Von. J. Chr. Zahn. 
Braunschweig. 1804.’’ 8yo. 

6 (1 papyri diplomatici raccolti,” &c. N. CXJX. p. 180, 81, 82. 

37 


290 GUTHIC VERSION. 


Epistles of Paul discovered by him. ‘The pages contain the last eight 
days of June and the whole of July. Two festivals disclose the people 
among whom these fragments originated; one, on the 23d of June, 
“of the martyrs put to death among the Goths, and of Fritharik,” the oth- 
er, on the 29th of thesame month: “‘in memory of the martyrs who were 
burnt eh Vereka the priest and Batwin the minister of the Gothic 
church.” 

As to the other points, the calendar only renders probable what is 
made certain by the document at Naples. 


§ 136. 


Except the Silver Codex at Upsal and the pages discovered by Knittel 
at Wolfenbiittel, all the documents of this kind are found in Italy. Prob- 
ably even the Silver Codex at Upsal was executed in Italy. MSS. writ- 
ten in silver letters on purple-colored parchment, with initial lines of 
gold, seem to be peculiar to that country. 

The splendid MS. in the Royal Library at Vienna, written on purple 

in silver and gold, containing the Gospels of Luke and Mark, was for- 
merly possessed by the Augustines of St. John de Carbonara at Naples. 
The MSS. of the four Gospels described by Blanchini (one at Brescia, Co- 
dex Brixiensis argenteus, the other at Verona, Cod. Argent. Veronens.) 
are well known. ‘They are preserved in both places in the library of 
the cathedral. In the cathedral-library at Peruggia there are fragments 
of Luke’s Gospel, written in silver on purple. (Blanchini, Evangeliar. 
quadruplex. T. II. p. DLXI.) 
. The Silver Codex of Upsal arranges the Gospels in the following or- 
' der: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. They stand in the same order in 
the MSS. of Brescia and Verona, in the Codex of St. Eusebius at Ver- 
celli, and (as respects Luke and Mark) in the above mentioned MS. at 
Vienna. 

Beneath the Gospels of the Upsal Codex stand the Canons of Euse- 
bius. The margin, in which the four Evangelists are separated into sec- 
tions by the Ammonian or Eusebian numbers, is divided by columns in- 
to seven compartments. ‘The columns are united above by arches so as 
to resemble an architectural design. 'The capitals are not executed ac- 
cording to any one of the usual orders, but in that barbarous taste which 
we denominate Gothic. Now this design and this decoration of the 
capitals are found exactly in the same way below the Latin Gospels in 
the Codex Argenteus Briziensis above mentioned.” Such casual cir- 
cumstances, not the result of any rule, but depending upon the customs 
of a region or a people, are satisfactory evidence of national relation- 
ship. 

If the Upsal Codex was written, as the preceding considerations ren- 
der very probable, in Italy, it must have originated, at the latest, in the - 
beginning of the 6th century, before the Gothic supremacy in Italy was 
destroyed and the whole nation almost extirpated. 
1 Ulphile partium ineditarum specimen. p. 26. 27. 


2 Comp. the representation in Busching’s Analectis Ulphilanis, (Dissert. I. 
De Cod. argent., p. 189) with Bianchini, Vindicie canonicar. scriptur. Vulga- 
tw editionis etc. Rome 1740. fol. p. CCCLXXXI. 


GOTHIC VERSION. 291 


Only the Wolfenbiittel fragments of the Epistle to the Romans appear 
to have had their origin in Spain. When they were expunged, the Orig- 
ines of Isidore of Seville were written! over them in Latin characters, 
such as are found, according to Knittel, in Spanish MSS. of the 10th 
century. 


§ 187. 


Having thus satisfied ourselves that we possess the greater part of 
the New Testament in the language of the Goths, we may enter upon 
some inquiries in respect to that people. When they first attracted the 
particular notice of history, they were dwelling on the eastera—bank of 
the Dniester and along the Black Sea, within uncertain limits to the 
north and northeast. Another portion of the same people had settled 
down beiween the Dniester and Pruth, as far as to the mouths of the 
Danube. The latter are called Visigoths, and the former Ostrogoths. 
Issuing from these regions, they molested the Roman provinces, after the 
time of Caracalla, or served the emperors against other nations for pay. 
Frequently, in order to keep them quiet, it was agreed to pay them annu- 
al sums of money, under the pretextof alliance. Ifthe stipulated sums 
were withheld, an irruption into the Roman territory was the certain 
consequence. Sometimes, after they discovered their advantage, they 
plundered the country even when the sums had been paid. 

Under the indolent Gallienus such visits were made, not only by the 
Goths, but by the barbarous tribes on every side. It is to these irrup- 
tions in the reign of Gallienus that the conversion of the barbarians, and 
particularly of the Goths, is ascribed by ecclesiastical historians. ‘There 
were sometimes Christian teachers among the many prisoners whom 
they carried away ; through these they became acquainted with the doc- 
trines of Christianity. 

Their expeditions extended into Pontus, as we learn from the eccle- 
siastical proceedings instituted by Gregory of Neo-Cesarea (called 
Thaumaturgus, or worker of miracles,) against wicked Christians who 
’ bought the spoils of the country from the δοράδοις and Tudors, be- 
trayed to them the situation of treasures, or assisted in carrying them 
away. 

Mention is made by several historians of the expedition or rather ex- 
peditions into Pontus. ‘‘ The Goths,” says Eutropius, “have ravaged 
Pontus and Asia.”> Another writer says: “‘ The Scythians, or a part 
of the Goths, ravaged Asia, came to Heraclea, and at last to Pontus, 
where they were defeated.”*4 ‘The account given by Zosimus seems to 
me the best. Those whom Gregory called Bogados he calls Logavos. 
They penetrated into Pontus, but were driven back by the Roman com- 
mander Successianus. As soon, however, as they learned that he was 


1 Sozom. H. Eccles, L.II.¢.6. This isstated more expressly by Philostorg. 
H. Eccles. L. II.c. 5. 


2 Beveregii Synodicon. sive Pantacte Canon. T. II. Oxon. 1672. p. 24—29. 
Epistola Synodica Greg. Thaumat. cum Comment. Balsamon. et Zonar. 


3 Eutrop. Breviar. L. IX. ο. 8. 
4 Trebelias Pollioin Gallieno, c. 12, 13. 


292 GOTHIC VERSION. 


recalled from the province of Pontus, they came again, took Trapezunt, 
and returned home of their own accord when they had plundered to 
their satisfaction. 

These events were the occasion of their conversion to Christianity, 
and in a short time it gained many adherents among them ; for at the 
great Nicene Council the decrees were subscribed by Theophilus Bos- 
phoritanus, Metropolitan of the Goths.” 

After the Council of Nice, the Goths obtained a new missionary, nam- 
ed Audius, a man of strict habits of life, who, however, resisted the de- 
cree in regard to Easter, and was banished from the country by Constan- 
tine for his open contumacy. He now travelled to Scythia, and into 
the very interior of Gothland, imparting instruction and even founding 
considerable monastic establishments both of males and females.? One 
of the Gothic chiefs, however, hated the faith of the Christians, and 
violently persecuted those who adopted it, on the ground that it was 
the religion of the Roman rulers; but he could not prevent the exten- 
sion of the faith nor destroy the sources of instruction.‘ 

Such, nearly, was the state of things, when they were compelled to 
- abandon their country by the pressure of a wild horde of greater bar- 
barians than themselves. The Huns expelled the Ostrogoths; and 
these, urged on upon the Visigoths, pressed upon the latter and drove 
them onward before them. 

Forced to yield to the impulse, they had no other means of safety, 
but tosend an embassy to Valens, petitioning that they might be admit- 
ted into the Roman dominions onthe Danube. At the head of the 
embassy was Ulfila,a Gothic Bishop.* In order to ensure success, Ul- 
fila promised for himself and his countrymen, to adopt the doctrines of 
Arius, which had been ardently espoused by Valens and those about 
him. The Emperor granted their request ; they were soon followed by 
the other half of the Western Goths, who, like their brethren, were 
transplanted to the provinces of Thrace and Mesia. 

But scarcely, says one historian, had they reached their new posses- 
sions, when a division arose among them. Athanarich, who was dis- 
affected towards the Christian doctrines, would not tolerate them among 
his followers and persecuted with severity all who professed them. 
Frithigern, an adherent tothe doctrines of Christianity, thinking himself 
bound to protect the persecuted, sent Ulfila to seek assistance of the 
Emperor and obtained it.’ 

This last persecution and embassy would seem, however, to have been 
referred to so late a period only by mistake, and to be the same as 
those before mentioned. Sozomen alone mentions this second perse- 


1 Zosim. L. I. c. 31, 32, 33. ° 


2 He subscribed his name to the Acts of the Council (according to Latin his- 
torians) as Theophilus Gothorum Metropolis and Theophilus Bosphoritanus. (Comp. 
Socrat. H. Eccl. L. II. c. 41.) . 


3 Epiphan. Her. LXX. § 14. p. 827. ed. Colon. 

4 Epiphan. loc. cit. ὃ 15. p, 828. 

5. Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. L. VI. c. 37. 

6 Sozomen. L. II.c.6. Theodoret. H. Eccl. L. 1V.c. 37. 
7 Sozomen. loc. cit. 


GOTHIC VERSION. 293 


cution, and he takes no notice of the first. Other writers mention but 
one persecution, which occurred while the Goths still dwelt in their 
own country and were still orthodox. ΤῸ this period it is assigned by 
Epiphanius, from whom we have derived the preceding account, by 
Socrates, the historian! and by Augustine, who assigns it to a period 
antecedent to the rise of Arianism.” If Ulfila was despatched to the 
Emperor on account of this persecution, to implore his assistance a- 
gainst the oppressor Athanarich, it was the first mission of the Gothic 
Bishop, and facilitated the second, when he came to request a place of 
abode for his ejected countrymen. 

Valens, as we have said, admitted the Goths, and they were provided 
for. Some time after, however, eastern affairs having called Valens to 
a distance, they were, in the absence of the emperor, so grossly ill treat- 
ed by one of his generals and the governor of Thrace, that the aggrieved 
nation suddenly arose, rebelled, and defeated their oppressors.? They 
then applied to their own use the Roman arms which they had taken 
from the vanquished, and became doubly formidable. 

Valens hastened from Asiato punish them. Although they were in 
a condition to meet him on the field of battle, they sent an ambassador 
to apologise for them and conciliate Valens. The historian denomi- 
nates the person who was entrusted with this commission, Christiant 
ritus presbyter. Probably Ulfila stood for the third time in the capacity 
of ambassador. But the fate of Valens was determined (proceeds the 
historian); a battle ensued andthe emperor was left dead on the field.* 
From this time the Goths were more secure in their possessions, and had 
they known the value of their victory, they would not have suffered 
themselves to be sent away with presents from the gates of Constan- 
tinople. 


§ 138. 


The Bishop of the Goths, whom the ancient writers sometimes call U]- 
filas, sometimes Wulfilas, and who is well known to us by what he accom- 
plished, is proclaimed by the unanimous voice of history the inventor of 
the Gothic alphabet and the translator of the sacred books of the Old 
and New Testament.° The language of ancient writers is so general 
as to imply that he translated all the Sacred Scriptures, τὸς ϑείας yougas, 
ἱερας βίβλους, divinas scripturas. Philostorgius alone makes an excep- 


1 Socrat. H. Eccl. L. IV. c. 33. 


2 Augustin. De Civ. Dei L. XVIII. c. 52.—“ Nisi forte non est persecutio com- 
putanda, quando rex Gothorum in ipsa Gothia persecutus est Christianos crudeli- 
tate mirabili, cum ibi non essent nisi Catholici, quorum plurimi martyrio coronati 
sunt: sicut a quibusdam fratribus, qui tune illic pueri fuerant, et se ἰδία vidisse 
incunctanter recordabantur, audivimus.” 

3 Ammian. Marcellin. L. XXXI.c. 4. 

4 Ammian Marcellin. Hist. L. XX XI. c. 12. 


5 Socrates H. Eccles. L. IV. ο. 27 (according to some editions, 33). Sozomen. 
L. VI. ο. 37. Cassiodor. Hist. Tripart. L. VIII. c. 13. Jornandes, De reb. Goth. c. 
51. Heupelii Dissert. de Ulfila, Witteberg, 1693. Essbergii Ulphilas Gothor. 
Episcopus. Holmiw. 1700. both in Busching’s collection. Benzelii Prefat. to 
the Gothic Gospels, edited by Edward Lye. 


294 . GOTHIC VERSION. 


tion in regard to the book of Kings, saying that Ulfila regarded it as 
imprudent to put into the hands of a warlike nation a military history 
which might inflame their imagination. Were the historic credit of Phi- 
lostorgius less questionable than it is, it might nevertheless be objected 
that there was equal reason why Ulfilas should not have translated 
Joshua, Judges, and indeed a great part of Moses’ writings, as well as 
other books. 

Before we pass to the question when Ulfila undertook his translation, 
we must correct another mistake which disfigures the history of his life. 
The same Philostorgius represents the bishop as a distinguished man as 
early as the time of Constantine the Great, and introduces him into the 
Nicene Council.2, He confounds Constantinus with Constantius, and 
the Nicene Council with one at. Constantinople, which, through the in- 
fluence of Acacius, passed resolutions that were not favorable to the 
orthodox doctrines. In this, however, Ulfila faithfully adhered to the 
doctrines of the fathers. I quote the words of Sozomenus: πὶ δὲ 
τῆς Κωνσταντίου βασιλείας ἀπερισκέπτως οἶμαι τοῖς ἀμφὶ ᾿δυδύόξιον 
καὶ μκακίον τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινοπόλεν συνόδου διέμεινε κοινωνῶν 
τοῖς ἱερεύσι τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνελϑόντων. (L. VI. ο. 97.) 

Although perhaps he was engaged in public affairs at an earlier pe- 
riod, he did not translate the Sacred Scriptures till after he removed 
with his countrymen to their new residence on this side of the Danube. 
This fact is attested by the historian Socrates,® and the language and char- 
acters of the version afford clear proofs of it. Some of the letters com- 
posing his Gothic alphabet were borrowed from the Roman charac- 
ters, viz. d,h, sand f. 'The many Latin words (§. 134) which he has 
adopted in his version, imply that his countrymen were residing in the 
Roman provinces, and had thus become familiar with the signification 
of such words. 


§ 139. ᾿ 


The translation was made from the Greek text. The orthography 
observed in it is borrowed from the Greek. The I is generally written 
ΕΠ: SOKJIS, thou seekest, is generally written SOKJEIS. SOKITH, 
he seeks, is still oftener written SOKEITH. The Greeks pronounced 
y before γ, or %, like v; and this custom is shown in the orthography of 
the Gothic version. I will give instances of it, retaining the Greek I" 
as in the Codex: INNFATLAITH THAIR ALFrVU DAUR. 
UNTE BRAID DAUR JA RUMS VIIS SA BRIIFTANDA IN 
FRALUSTAI. “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide (is) the 
gate and broad (is) the way that leadeth to destruction.” (Matt. 7: 18). 
This single verse affords us three examples. Take in addition, Matt. 
6: 31, DRITKAM, to drink; 10:42, TADRATKEITH, he gives to 
drink; Mark 2: 16, DRITTKITH, he drinks ; and, from the fragments 
of the Epistle to the Romans, 12: 20, DRATKEI, drink; 15: 15, | 
TATTIS, thou goest. _ ’ 

1 Philostorg. H. Eccles. L. 2. c. 5. 

2 Philostorg. loc. cit. 

3 Socrat. L. IV. ς. 33. 


GOTHIC VERSION. 295 


This is proved yet further by the care with which the translator ex- 
hibits the etymological sense of particular words. In Mark 12:38, he 
renders ὁλοκαυτώματα, exactly in accordance with its etymology, AL- 
ABRUNSTE; in John 7: 3, σκηνοπηγία, HLETHRASTAKEINS, 
the fastening of tents; John 10: 22, ἐγκαίνια, INNJUGITHA, com- 
pounded of the words in and jung, as the Greek of ἐν and καινὸς. In 
Luke 1: 51, where all the Latin MSS. have superbos ( Vercellens. Vero- 
nens. Briziens. Corbei.), he translates ὑπερηφάνους by MIKIL- 
THUHTANS, in order to imitate the ὑπὲρ and φαίνομαι. In Luke 1: 
1, where the Latin versions incorrectly render menAnoogoonueywy by 
͵ completa sunt, he presents the sense and the etymology accurately : 
GAFULLAVEISIDONS. So in Mark 14: 56, where the Latin trans- 
lator was obliged to use at least two words for Ewevdoucotveour, he 
exhibits its composition very happily by one word, GALIUGVEIT- 
VODIDEDUN. Immediately after, too, (v . 58,) where in Latin two 
words are necessarily used for ἀχεέροποίητον, non manufactum, he 
uses, like the Greek, but one word, UNHANDUVAURHTA. 

The translator, further, has confounded words in such a way that he 
must have had the Greek before him. Thus, in Luke 3: 14, he mistook 
APKEISOE for APXEZ@OE. The word VALDAN exists in the 
Franconian and Anglo-Saxon dialects, in the sense which we give it 
now-a-days, and it is found in composition in the Gothic in Mark 10: 
42, GAVALDAND, governing. Had Lye and Ihre here thought 
what would be the corresponding Greek word, and then compared it 
with that with which Luke used, they would not have been perplexed 
by this passage. Even the Gothic readers endeavored to amend their 
version here, probably from the Latin MSS.; for in the margin are 
the words GANOHIDAI SIJUTH, as though they had before them 
contenti estote (Veronens. Brix.), or sufficientes estote (Vercellens.). 

‘The translator confounded the word πέπλήρωκεν, in John 16: 6, with 
menwowxev, so that GADAUBIDA, hath deprived of sense, is used in- 
stead of GAFULLIDA, hath filled. This mistake has been remarked 
before ; as well as that in Luke 8: 25, where for τρυφῆ the word τροφῆ, 
FUDEINS, food, victuals, is used. 

In John 7: 12, ἀληϑηὴς is substituted for «yao, which was very easy 
in Greek ; but in Cod. Brix. Argent., likewise, which resembles this 
one very much, the same substitution occurs, the translation being 
verar est. It would be difficult, therefore, to determine which of the two 
originally made the mistake, and which borrowed it from the other. 

A similar case occurs in Matt. 8: 9, where the translator, by inaccurate 
punctuation, joined ἔχων͵ to ἐξουσίαν, and then, to make sense, chang- 
ed or mistook ὑπ ἐμαυτόν for τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ. He thus obtained the fol- 
lowing clause : ἐγὼ ἀἄνϑρωπός εἶμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ 
στρατιώτας. A circumstance of this kind could have originated only 


. from a direct inspection of the Greek. But Cod. Briz. gives precisely 


the same turn to the sentence: et ego homo sum habens sub potestatem 
meam milites. Now who can decide which of the two translators first 
misinterpreted the original, and which took his translation from the 
other ? 

I conjecture that two words are confounded in another place. Though 
the case is not exactly pertinent, I will indulge myself in a word or two 


296 GOTHIC VERSION. 


upon it, as it gives me an opportunity to present an amendment of the 
Gothic text. In Matt.'27: 48, deauwy is strangely translated bearing. 
(Φερών and δραμὼν could hardly be mistaken for each other ; the mis- 
take must therefore be elsewhere, viz. in the Gothic. The words 
SUNSPRATIDA and SUNSSIRAJTIDA,—sunsthragida, he 
bore quickly—sunssprangida, he ran quickly, —were erroneously con- 
founded with each other. 

In Luke 1: 10, προσδεχόμενον, BEIDANDANS, (still retained in the 
Suabian dialect in the word beithen, to wait for, to expect,) is substitu- 
ted for προσευχόμενον. In Luke 14: 14, the translator read αυτοὶ οὐκ 
ἔχουσιν instead of ὅτι οὐκ ἔχουσιν. In Luke 15: 16, for χεραίων is 
put HAURNE, κεράτων; for κέρας is translated HAURN in Luke 1: 
69, and we find in Matt. 9: 23, HAURNIANDANS, blower of @ 
horn. In Luke 19: 25, μνᾶς was taken for an abbreviation of μερίδας, 
and translated DAILOS, parts. In Rom. 11: 33, the translator read, 
for ἀνεξερεύνητα, the word ἀνεξέρετα, a compound hardly to be met 
with in any good author; yet he has rendered it syllable for syllable, 
UN-US- SPILLODA, not ἃ θῥητα. 

Lastly, in Luke 9: 18, συνῆσαν αὐτῷ is rendered GAMOTIDEDUN 
IMMA, which Edward ‘Lye translated by the Swedish métte hom, and 
the English met him. 'There is no doubt that GAMOTJAN (Luke 14: 
31. Mark 14: 13,) signifies to meet. Hence συνῆσαν must have been 
—: συνήντησαν. 


th 


§ 140. 


δ 
- It is clear, therefore, that the version was made from ἃ Greek MS., 
and, as we shall see, from one belonging to the Constantinopolitan Re- 
cension. We will exhibit proofs of this from the eleventh chapter of 
Mark. ; 


Lucian. Hesychius. 
2. οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων 
τες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε G. | λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε 
3. αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει ὧδε G. | ἀποστέλλει πάλιν αὑτόν 
6. ἐνετείλατο α. | εἶπεν 
7. ἐνέβαλον ἐπὶ αὐτῷ G. | ἐπιβάλλουσιν ἐπὶ αὑτόν 
9. ἔχραζον λέγοντες, 5 G. | ἔκραζον 
10. βασιλεία € éy ὀνόματι κυρίου α. βασιλεία 
11. εἰς “Ἱεροσόλυμα ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς G. εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα “ 
13. μακρόϑεν, α. | ἀπὸ ) μακρόϑεν 
᾿ εὑρήσει ᾿ τί G. | ti εὑρήσει 
14, ἐκ σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα G. | sic τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ 
15. εἰσελϑὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς G. εἰσενϑών 
18, γραμματεῖς καὶ οἵ ἀρχιερεῖς ΟΕ. ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἵ γραμματεῖς 
23. αὐτῷ 0 ἐὰν εἴπῃ α. αὐτῷ 
πα ἄγετε Ἵ α.. ἐλάβετε te 
28. καὶ ὶ λέγουσ᾽ καὶ ἔλεγον G,%..; 
τὴν ‘our. ἔδωχεν G. ἔδωκε τὴν ἐξουσ. ταύτ. ᾿ 
29. ἀποκχριϑεὶς . ἡ + G. εἶπεν εν 
32, ὅτι ὄντως πὶ προφήτης α. ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ? 
33, λέγουσι τῷ ἢ Ἰησοῦ τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ λέγουσι». ἢ 
εὖ . 
ep 


GOTHIC VERSION. 297 


There are two peculiar readings in this chapter found only in the 
Gothic text; viz., in v. 10, after ἐν ὀνόματι, the word κυρίου is omitted 
(probably because the following tov πατρὸς ἡμῶν Aafid did not seem 
to the translator consistent with κυρίου) ; and in v. 33, λέγ. αὐτῷ is read 
instead of λέγ. τῷ ]Πησοῦ. 

The 26th verse, which is wanting in many Egyptian MSS. (and prob- 
ably in the Recension generally, though I will not positively assert this, ) 
existed in the Gothic text, as in all Constantinopolitan MSS. 

In two readings, however, this version follows neither the Lucianian 

~ nor Hesychian Recension, but adheres to the third. In the 2d verse it 

reads οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀνθρώπων; not οὔπω, as Lye asserts, for NAUH 

is πώ or πωποτε--οὐδέπω or οὔπω is NINAUH. This reading it has 

in common with Cod. Argent. In v. 8., where the Constantinopolitan 

and Egyptian Recensions agree in the reading εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, it has, not 

ΟΝ VIG, but ANA VIGA, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, which is found in A, K, M, 11, 

114,116. In other readings, however, it deviates so far from the MSS. 

of the third Recension, that these two instances are only exceptions 
from the general fact. 

It was not the lot of thisdocument, however, to continue long without 
additions ; for the Latin versions previous to Jerome’s time, with which 
the Goths in Italy became acquainted, furnished various materials, for 
(as it was supposed) embellishing the MSS. of this version with many 
additions. ‘I'his was the more likely to be done, as sometimes one of 
these Latin versions was written by the side of the Gothic, of which 
convincing evidence is afforded by the fragments of the Epistle to the 
Romans. Alterations were made in order that they might harmonise 
where as yet they did not, and probably often only for the sake of mak- 
ing the lines and verses of each correspond. ᾽ν 
_ When they were not written opposite each other, collation frequently 
gave rise to marginal notes, which were afterwards inserted in the text. 
Ihre, in the preface to his “ Ulfilas illustratus,” enumerates fourteen 
marginal notes in the Codex Argenteus, ready for incorporation with the 
text as amendments in the next transcript of it which should be made. 
E. g. at Luke 9: 34, ἐν τῷ ἐχείνους εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν νεφέλην, where 
the translator confined himself closely to the Greek phraseology, some 
one has placed the Latin reading at the side, AIH AT IM IN MILH- 
MAM ATGAGGANDAM, like Cod. Veronens. and Briziens., “et in- 
trantibus illis innubem.” Junius even adopted the last reading in the 
text of his edition. ἫΝ 

It was in this way that a version intended to represent the Constanti- 
nopolitan Recension with extreme fidelity, and to render it word for 
word, became of so heterogeneous acharacter. From the Latin, 6. g., 
comes the long addition after πᾶσεν οἷς ἐποίει in Luke 9: 43, which 
appears as follows in the MS. of Brescia: Dizit Petrus, Domine, quare 
nos non potuimus eicere eum? at ille dixit, hoc genus non exiet, nisi in 
orationibus et jguntis.—So in v. 50, after ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν gore, where the 
Latin MSS. read: Nemo est enim, qui non faciat virtutem in nomine 
meo, et poterit male loqui de me, the Gothic text contains the first part of 
the Latin reading as far as et poterit, with a small variation: Mec ullus 

“enim est hominum, qui non, etc. But it is too well known what this ver- 
sion has suffered from the acquaintance which its readers had with the 


a” 


298 GOTHIC VERSION. 


ancient Latin text, to make it necessary for me to present further proofs 
or examples. 

Yet the difficulty which this creates in criticism is not great. The 
origin of the Gothic version would lead us to expect that it should certi- 
fy what was formerly genuine and usual in the Constantinopolitan Re- 
cension. On this point it is certainly a venerable and authoritative wit- 
ness, and, in order to obtain its evidence pure, it is merely necessary that: 
what has been added to it from the Latin should be carefully distinguish- 
ed and separated. hisis in general so easily perceptible, and can so 
readily be removed by collation, that there is very little danger of er-— 
ror. 

As to the Epistles, the passages selected as specimens by Maio are 
not very well suited to show what Recension the version exhibits, be- 
cause many of the discrepancies between different Recensions are not 
perceptible in versions; and this is the case in the specimens which 
are published, more than in the other chapters of the Pauline Epistles. 


§ 141. : 


The procedure of the translator evinces that he was ἃ man of ability, 
sound judgment and capacity. He does not give a merely general ex- 
pression of the meaning of the text, nor content himself with a para- 
phrase of it, without reference to each particular word and minute part 
of speech; but he confines himself strictly to his text, and adjusts his 
language to it by means of well-chosen phraseology and happy com- 
pounds, without doing violence to the language or sacrificing its laws 
to an obscure literalism. We see that he was sometimes at a loss as to 
the Greek ; but over his own language he had complete mastery. — It 
was, in fact, no light thing to undertake a work of this kind, in a dia- 
lect, the laws of which had not been investigated and had not been 
enumerated, discussed, or classified by any grammarian, and, notwith- 
standing, to execute it with as much consistency and uniformity in the 
management of the language, as if he was provided with a regular 
grammar of its principles. 

He seems to have added punctuation-marks himself, to assist his 
countrymen in reading and understanding his version; for they are 
. found in the Upsal and Ambrosian copies, and are alike in all. At the 
end of a sentence a dot is placed, and two dots at the end of a series of 
sentences or a paragraph. ; 

The Epistle to the Hebrews is wanting in both of the Milan MSS.; 
and perhaps not accidentally, as is confidently asserted. ‘This, how- 
ever, need not surprise us, for it was not acknowledged by the friends 
εἶ χὴν Arian creed generally. (Comp. the IId Partof this Introd. ᾧ 

he 


SCLAVONIC VERSION. 299 


THE SCLAVONIOC VERSION. 


§ 142. 


In the beginning of the 9th century, the archbishops of Lorch, in 
what is now Austria above the Ens, attempted to extend and establish 
Christianity in Moravia. Their attemptsucceeded. Many of the prin- 
cipal men of the kingdom, and among them Duke Moymir, attached 
themselves to the missionaries and were baptized. 

But the quarrels between Louis, king of Germany, and Rastislaw, 
_ Duke of Moravia, stopped the progress of the German priests in the lat- 
ter country. When Rastislaw heard of the success with which Con- 
stantine, surnamed the Philosopher, preached Christianity among the 
Chazars, on the northern shore of the Black Sea, he determined to get 
finally rid of the German missionaries, and requested the court at Con- 
stantinople to permit this Constantine, who was afterwards called Cy- 
ΤΊ], toteach his subjects. Hecame, accompanied by his brother Metho- 
dius, and entered on his new duties. Hitherto Latin MSS. had been 
used in the religious worship of the Moravians. Constantine and his 
brother clearly perceived how much influence they would acquire over 
the people by instituting public religious service in the national language. 
They therefore made use of the alphabet which they had invented for 
the Bulgarians, and prepared a Sclavonic version of the Psalter, the 
New Testament, and the liturgical books. The result justified their 
undertaking ; but it was regarded unfavorably at‘Rome. No absolute 
prohibition, however, of their judicious scheme was issued ; a middle 
course was proposed. 


ᾧ 143. 


The Sclavonic version, then, was made in the middle of the ninth 
᾿ century by two native Greeks, and, as would be expected, from Greek 
MSS. They were born and brought up under the Constantinopolitan 
patriarchate, and were sent from Constantinople itself into the new 
harvest. We may hence infer the character of the MSS. they carried 
with them, and what text is followed by the version. 

And it certainly exhibits, in general, the text of that family of MSS. 
which we have denominated the Constantinopolitan or Lucian Re- 
cension. We will select but a single chapter of the Gospels in proof of 
this. All the readings here presented from Lucian’s Recension are ex- 
hibited in the Sclavonic version, as we know from Prof. Alter’s colla- 
tion of two MSS. in the Royal Library at Vienna, viz. Cod. Slav. 
No. CCCLV, and No. CCCLVI. : 


Ay 


300 SCLAVONIC VERSION. 


Mark V. 
Lucian. Hesychius. 
2. καὶ ἐξελϑόντι αὐτῷ καὶ ἐξελϑόντος αὐτοῦ 
3, ἁλύσεσιν οὐδεὶς ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδείς 
9. σοὶ ὄνομα ὕνομά σοι 
ἀπεχρίϑη λέγων λέγει αὐτῷ 
12. καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν πάντες χαὶ ore αὐτόν 
οἵ δαίμονες λέγ....... λέγ... 
13. αὐτοῖς εὐθέως Ι΄ αὑτοῖς 
ὁ Inootc καὶ eel... καὶ ἐξελϑ. 
14. οἱ δὲ Boox..... καὶ οἵ βόσκ... 
τοὺς χοίρους αὐτούς 
καὶ an χαὶ ἡλϑον 
15. καϑήμ... . καὶ ἵματισ.... καϑήμ-. ἵματισ. : 
18. ἵνα ῇ μετ αὐτοῦ ἵνα wet αὐτοῦ ἢ 
19. ὃ δὲ᾽ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ we ws καὶ οὐκ τὸ ἢ 2g 
22. ual ἰδοὺ ἔρχ. καὶ ἔρχ. 
23. zal ζήσεται καὶ ζήσῃ, ᾿ : 
95, καὶ γυνή τις καὶ γυνή ° 
83. γέγονεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ γέγονεν αὑτῇ 
98, = ἔρχεται καὶ ἔρχονται 
40. 6 δὲ éxBad.. αὐτὸς δὲ &xBod . . 
τὸ παιδίον ἃ iipomaldavay τὸ παιδίον 


One of the students and friends of Sclavonic literature has asserted, 
judging rather, it would seem, from a few engraved readings than 
from the general character of this version, that it agrees remarkably 
with Codex L and D.! 

It istrue that it has frequently the same readings, because the MSS. 
of one Recension were interpolated from another ; but I apprehend 
that very few of them owe their origin to interpolations from Greek 
MSS. At any rate, it frequently happens that such readings as it has in 
common with L and D, occur likewise in the Vulgate and i in the Latin 
fathers. E. g. Matt.10: 12, τὴν οἰκίαν λέγοντες, εἰρήνη τῷ οἴχῳ τούτῳ, 
DL. Vulg.—12: 15, πάντας δὲ, ous ἐθεράπευσεν, ἐπέληξεν, D. Slav. 
2. Vulg. —17: 2, λευκὰ ος ὁ χιών, Ὦ. Slav. Vulg.—Mark 11: 15, καὲ 
πάλιν ἔρχονται, L. Vulg.—11: 24, ὅτι λήψεσϑε, D. Vulg.—14: 41, 
ἀναπαύεσϑε το ) τέλος, D. Latt. —I5: 16, ἔσω εἰς τὴν αὐλήν, D. eta wes 
Luke 2: 23, ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, BDL. Slav. 1. Vulg. 
—ll: 14, δαιμονίου ἐχβληϑέντος, AL. Vulg. &c. 


§ 144. 


Interpolation from the Latin is possible and supposable, if the regula- 
tion of John VIII respecting the use of the Sclavonic language in the 
church service ever went into effect. Yet, granting this, it did not 


1 Dobrowsky in Michaelis’ “ Neuer oriental. exegetischer Biblioth.”’ T. VII. 
p- 155—167. 

2 Baron. ad ann. 880. ‘‘ Jubemus tamen,” writes John VIII to Duke Swato- 
pluk, “‘ ut in omnibus ecclesiis terre vestre propter majorem honorificentiam 
Evangelium Latine legatur, ut postmodum Slavonica lingua translatum in au- 
ribus populi Latina verba non a annuncietur, sicut in quibusdaes 


ecclesiis fieri videtur.’”” No. XIX. ὡς 


PRINGIPLES OF CRITICISM. 301 


long continue in force; for Wratislaw, Duke of Bohemia, requested 
Gregory VII to permit the use of the Sclavonic version among his sub- 
jects in religious worship. Gregory refused, on the following ground in 
particular: non immerito sacram scripturam omnipotenti Deo placuisse 
quibusdam in locis esse occultam, ne, si ad liquidum cunctis pateret, 
forte vilesceret et subjaceret despectui, aut prave intellecta a mediucribus, 
in errorem induceret.” (Greg. Ep. L.VII. Ep. 15 a.1080.) The Scla- 
vonic ritual, therefore, had been sometime out of use: it was probably 
dropped between the years 935 and 970, when the bishopric of Moravia 
and that of Regensburg were united.' I therefore readily restrict my as- 
sertion that the Latin version had an important influence on the read- 
ings of the Sclavonic, particularly as appearances may be explained by 
the condition of the Greek copy from which the latter was made. 

One Recension was sometimes interpolated from the others, and thus, 
clearly, readings from the κοενὴ ἔχδοσις and from Egyptian MSS. may 
have been introduced into Constantine’s copies.” 


§ 145, 


Although this version Jays no claim to high antiquity, it is yet a valu- 
able document, exceedingly worthy of critical pains. The editio prin- 
ceps of the Gospels is a quarto edition of 1512, which appeared in Wal- 
lachia; next comes the Gospels published at Wilna, 1575, then the 
whole bible at Ostrog, 1581, and a reprint at Moscow, 1663. 


CHAPTER IX. 
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 


§ 146. 


A sketch of the history of the text of the New Testament has been 
presented, and the means which offer their aid in obviating the inaccura- 
cies with which it has become disfigured have been enumerated and dis- 
cussed in their order. We have now toseek for the principles by which 
our procedure in the execution of this task is to be directed. These we 
shall most surely arrive at by considering the accidents to which the 
text has been exposed, and in what way the various errors in it origi- 
nated. History is here, as generally when practical rules of conduct 
are in question, our instructress. 

The more the history of the text has been developed, the greater sim- 
plicity and precision have the operations of criticism obtained. We are 

Ser eee 


1 Assemani, “ Kalendaria ecclesie universe.” T. IV. P. II. c. 3. ἃ, 24. p. 
202—5. ; 


2 I willingly yield this deference to Dobrowsky, who (in Slavanca, a periodi- 
cal work on Sclavonic literature, 2d number, Prag. 1815,) defends the Sclavonic 
version against the imputation of interpolation from the Latin, which, in the first 
edition of this work, I asserted more confidently than I ought. 


> 


302 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 


now aware, that in critical decisions all depends on a few voices only, 
which are to be compared, examined, and weighed. Criticism has 
ceased to be an interminable task, in which there is no end to the in- 
quiry for various readings, in which in every particular case it is neces- 
sary to refer to some hundred MSS., and to give each of them its 
weight. It has ceased to be the case that a scholar, irresolute which 
of the multitude he should follow, can, according to his taste, or his pre- 
ference for a particular MS., or a liking for some peculiarity, some new 
various reading in a particular Codex, or other grounds not at all better, 
select and form a text which may be destroyed by the next editor, 
who does it only tosee the same right exercised upon him by his suc- 
cessor. We now know the deficiencies in our critical apparatus; we 
perceive a limit to our labors, a definite purpose in the collection of 
readings, and a rule by which we may decide respecting them. 

Our documents are now divided into certain classes, under which 
each individual document which we already possess and are acquainted 
with, or which we may hereafter obtain, (unless a new class should make 
its appearance, ) may be comprised. All MSS. which cannot be includ- 
ed under any one of these, having been produced by strange mixtures 
of different texts,can come into consideration only so far as they throw 
light upon the history of the various accidents to which the text was ex- 
posed. We have atext termed the xovv7] éxdoovs, the Gospels of which 
are exhibited in Codex D, the MSS. of Thomas of Charkel, and 1, 13, 
19, 124; the Acts of the Apostles, in DE, and Thomas’ ‘MSS. ; the 
Epistles, in DEFG; and the whole in the old Syriac version, the Latin 
versions antecedent to Jerome, and the Upper Egyptian or T hebaic ver- 
sion. 

We have a text amended by Hesychius, the Gospels of which are pre- 
served inthe MSS. BCL and some others; the Acts and Catholic Epis- 
tles in ABC, 40, Vat. 367. Matthzi I.; the Pauline Epistles in ABC, 
17, 46; the Apocalypse in AC, Vat. 579 and 26. Vindob. Kollar. 
We have the whole in the Lower-Egyptian or Memphitic version, and 
the Pauline and Catholic Epistles in the Ethiopic. 

We have an amended text by Lucian, of which the Gospels are con- 
tained in the MSS. EFGHSV and b, h.; the Acts in the Moscow MSS. 
f, al, b, d, c, m, k, in Alez.- Vat.29. and Lambec. XXX VIII. XXXV.; 
the Pauline and Catholic Epistles in the Moscow MS. g, andin k,], m, 
c, d, a3, b, in Alex.- Vat. 29. Pio-Vat. 50., and Lambec. XXVIII. 
XXXVIL XXXV. I.; the Apocalypse in r, k, p, 1, and o, Harlei. 5613. 
or Griesb. 29. Lamb. I. Alez.- Vat. 68. Vat. 116. Pio-Vat. 50. We 
have the Gospels in the Gothic version ; the Acts and Epistles in the 
Arabic version of the Polyglots ; the whole New Testament in the Scla- 
vonic version. 

Lastly, we have also a text of the Gospels revised by Origen in A, 
K, M, 42, 114, 116, Matth. 10. and the Philoxenian version. A more 
exact knowledge of this version will disclose in ΕἾΝ MSS. the other 
parts of the New Testament are contained. 


PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 303 


§ 147. 


The κοινὴ ἔχδοσις, as we have shown, exhibits the ancient text, but 
with many alterations, which it underwent during the 2d and a part of 
the 3d century. These alterations were the attempts of private indi- 
viduals to illustrate the Bible, and as such did not pass into all MSS., 
but differed in MSS. as readers, times, and places differed. Now these 
passages in which such alterations took place are arbitrary disfigure- 
ments of the general text. In order to possess the true text we must 
obtain the most ancient, in which no such alterations had yet taken 
place. All will agree to this; and consequently we assume it as a prin- 
ciple, that 

That text is the true text which was read in all MSS. without excep- 
tion in the most ancient times. 

To discover this, however, we ought to have a very great number of 
MSS. of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις of various countries and periods, so as to 
determine from comparison what are merely temporary and local addi- 
tions to the text. Now as this is not the case, it might be thought that, 
though this principle be valid, we must despair of obtaining by its aid 
the ancient unanimous text. So it would appear; but, in preparing 
each recension, its author must have collected a great number of the 
MSS. of his country for the purpose of adopting or rejecting accord- 
ing to their agreement or disagreement. Each Recension, therefore, 
represents a collection of MSS. of the κοινὴ éxdoovg, as far as in any 
particular country they harmonised in one text ; and we hence derive a 
second principle. 

The MSS. of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις and the Recensions of different 
countries afford us together, the means of determining the most ancient 
and universal text. 


§ 148. 


Neither of the Recensions, however, has come down to us through 
its MSS. in a state of purity. All of themin process of time were sub- 
jected to repeated accidents. We must, therefore, first of all discover 
what each of them did or did not read, and what each of them actual- 
ly testifies in favor of; i. e. we must first restore the purity of the Re- 
censions. ΤῸ do this wemust make use of our former principle, viz. 
that, 

That which the MSS. of a Recension unanimously exhibit, is the pe- 
culiar reading of that Recension. 

(a) Where MSS. differ, however, the oldest deserve the preference 
over the more modern; as they have not so often passed through the 
hands of copyists, who were in the habit of introducing into the text 
the annotations in the margin and between the lincs, and indulging 
themselves, likewise, in criticisms of their own. 

(b) As it respects more modern MSS., those are to be preferred to 
others of their own age, or are to be considered next in rank to the old- 
est, which are not disfigured by numerous peculiarities, contain the few- - 
est lectiones singulares, have suffered least from additions and correc- 


304 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 


tions, and betray the least negligence—in short, the less they differ from 
their class generally. 

(c) Where we have both the ancient MS. and the more modern 
transcript of it, they are to be regarded as one MS. and not as two. 

(d) In respect to versions of which we possess good critical editions, 
the older they are, the nearer they approach the period when the Recen- 
sions which they represent came from the hand of the emendator, and 
they are therefore more decisive thana MS. Generally, too, the trans- 
lator made use of more than one of the MSS. of his country. 

(e) The same is the case also in respect to the earlier fathers, when 
we are certain what they really read. 

When these old and long established rules are not sufficiently deci- 
sive, they may be supported or their deficiencies supplied by internal 
marks. The critics to whom we owe the Recensions (particularly 
Hesychius,) gave the preference in their choice of readings to the most 
grammatical expression or the purest Greek phraseology. (ὃ 37.) The 
following principles result from this characteristic of their critical pro- 
cedure. 

(a); That reading is the genuine reading of the Recension, which 
accords best with the laws of the Greek language, or is most elegant. 

(6) The Recensions took their rise from the xocvy ἔκδοσες of their 
country ; so that when there are various readings, that is most probable 
which agrees most with the xow7 ἔκδοσις. 

(c) Here, however, another historical fact must be taken into con- 
sideration. Revised MSS. were subsequently interpolated anew from 
MSS. of the κοενὴ ἔκδοσις. (ὃ 40.) Now if there is any probability 
that the agreement arises from this circumstance—if, 6. g., the reading 
of the κοινὴ éxdoocg appears only in modern MSS., while in others itis 
inserted in the margin or between the lines, or placed over the earlier 
readings as a correction—if such signs of a later interpolati®m are vis- 
ible, we must follow precisely the opposite principle from the preceding. 

(4) That reading of one Recension is to be preferred which agrees 
least with another Recension. For the Recensions were in later times 
frequently interpolated from each other by copyists and readers who 
collated different MSS. (ὃ 37.) 

(e) Incase of difference in MSS., we shall readily observe whether 
the beginning or end of church-lessons, the critical observations of the 
fathers or of commentators have had any influence in respect to that dif- 
ference ; in which case the suspicious part must give way to that to 
which no suspicion is attached. 

(f) My observation has led me to believe that Hesychius usually fa- 
vored the shortest readings; Lucian the longest. (ὃ 33. 111. 139. 143.) 


§ 149. 


When we have discovered what is the true reading of each Recen- 
sion, it becomes the business of criticism to weigh these three voices or 
Recensions and the existing MSS. of the κοινὴ éxdoovg against each 
other, in case they do not agree. 

Every Recension is, in truth, a collection of several MSS. of the - 
wow ἔκδοσις, with this difference, that the judgment of its author 


5 


PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 305 


has already discarded or adopted what appeared to him on collating 
the MSS. worthy of rejection or approval; often, however, as his taste 
and inclination dictated. This Jast was particularly the case in respect 
to their preference of the reading which was pure and elegant as to 
Greek construction, and especially in their avoiding, when they could, 
all Hebrew phrases and turns of expression. 

I. When, therefore, the MSS. of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις still extant agree 
in a harsh and rude expression, their agreement in it isof more weight 
than the agreement of the Recensions in one more strictly grammat- 
ical and elegant. 

II. As not only the authors of the Recension, but also the readers of 
the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, earnestly strove to get rid of the Hebraisms—when a 
Hebraistic reading is still preserved in a MS. of the κοινὴ éxdooce, it is 
to be considered as a genuine constituent part of the text in spite of 
the opposing voice of the Recensions. 

III. It is also auniversally admitted principle, that we should incline 
to that reading which is encompassed by exegetical difficulties. For 
all correctors labored to elucidate or get rid of such readings, and cor- 
rections were always made, not to render passages more difficult, but 
more plain. Yet there must be such an agreement in the MSS. of the 
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις in regard to a reading of this kind, as to leave no room 
for supposing that the difficulty originated in the blundering awkward- 
ness of the copyist. 

These are the cases in which the testimony of the xocvy éxdoorg 
outweighs the authority of all the Recensions; for the authors of the 
latter, in these cases, did not follow so much the evidence of the best 
copies they could obtain, as their own private judgment. 


ἐ § 150. 

IV. But in general the Recensions maintain a far higher authority 
than the existing MSS. of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις. For each of them arose 
from, and is the result of, the collation of several such MSS. Hence 
any reading in which they all agree is a reading universally attested in 
various countries and copies. 

V. But if the Recensions differ, we can hardly allow a preeminence to 
one over another ; for we do not know respecting either that its author 
consulted more, older, or better copies than the rest. If we were to 
grant precedence to either of them, it would be Origen’s ; inasmuch as 
its author had the most experience in the business of criticism, was 
able to procure more MSS. than the others, and was likewise more 
cautious and prudent in his procedure than any other ancient critic. 
But it is very seldom that we can apply such a precedence to any prac- 
tical use. ‘Two Recensions frequently contradict the other, and, 

VI. When this happens, the majority of voices is to decide. For, 
inasmuch as, in preparing the text, each author of a Recension consult- 
ed several MSS. in his own province, the agreement of two Recensions 
against the other is to be relied upon the more securely, as the MSS. of 
two different provinces could hardly have been subjected to the same 
corruptions, in such a manner that they would be found in the greater 
number of the MSS. be 


306 _ PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 


VII. In some instances, however, each of the three Recensions has 
a different reading. The reason of this difference lies either in the fact 
that the authors favored that reading which was least Hebraistic, most 
grammatical or elegant, (here come in the principles laid down in the 
preceding ὁ); or in the fact that in the ancient copies which they fol- 
lowed, certain mistakes had become so universal that the critics were 
induced to adopt them as genuine readings. 

(a) Now the ancient copies were corrupted, (not to speak of what 
was introduced into them from harmonies and apocryphal books,) by the 
interpolation of passages and expressions from another writer, or from 
some parallel passage, and further, where the Old ‘Testament is referred 
to in the New, by the adoption of some expression or clause from the 
former. (§. 24. N. 3. §. 31. N. 3.) 

(b) The formule at the beginning and end of church-lessons were in- 
serted in the text itself. (§. 24. N. 1. §. 31. N. 6.) ) 

(c) A change was made in the order of the words in order the better 
to connect them with such introductory or concluding formule, or, gen- 
erally, to connect more closely clauses which seemed too far separated 
from each other. (§. 33. N. 6.) 

(4) Some passages are given in a paraphrastic form. (δ. 33. N. 4.) 

When a mistake of this description, or asimilar one, (several of which 
we have enumerated in the history of the xovx7 ἔχδοσες,) is found in any 
Recension, its authority is no longer to be regarded in settling the true 
reading. 

VIII. It may be the case, when in a particular passage the three 
Recensions differ, that two of them approach each other, and differ only 
in unimportant points; in which case their agreement in the main 
brings us pretty near the true reading. 

IX. When Recensions differ, it may happen that the MSS. of the 
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις concur with one of them and give it a preponderance 
over the others. Or the unrevised text may afford us hints from 
which we can infer the origin of the readings in the Recensions, and can 
judge from that origin what estimation they deserve. 

X. These rules respect additions or alterations in the text; and we 
have not as yet considered at all a third species of variations, viz. omis- 
sions. As to these, it isa generally admitted rule that, where one clause 
endsin a similar manner as the foliowing, 1. e. with the same expression 
or like phraseology, what is wanting shall be restored to the text, since 
it was left out only on account of the Homoioteleuton. 

XI. Omissions were made intentionally, however, when synonymous 
expressions followed one another in such a way that one of them was 
regarded by the critic as an addition, and was rejected accordingly. 
(§. 24. N. 7.) 

XII. Or, which is nearly the same thing, when tautological expres- 
sions or clauses occurred, as was not unusual with the Hebrews, one of 
them was removed from the text as an explanatory addition. (ὃ 24 
N. 8.) 

When Recensions differ, if either of these causes has occasioned the 
omission of an expression or passage in one Recension, such omission 
is to be supplied from the others. 


PRINCIPLES OF GRITICISM. 307 


ᾧ 16]. 


In the use, however, and estimation of these means of criticism, we 
must be guided principally by a minute study of each writer, his style, 
his favorite expressions and phrases, his custom as to the use of connect- 
ing words, his grammatical peculiarities, &c. It is not till we have 
become intimately acquainted with the character of each in these re- 
spects, that we can pronounce what readings belong to him; which 
we should choose, and which reject. 

We are inclined to attribute something in this business to critical 
sensibility or feeling. I admit that in works of art and of taste this fre- 
quently guides us happily, even when it is not possible to explain it 
intelligibly. But so long as we stop with this, our judgment is merely 
conjecture. ‘To the connoisseur this suffices but for a moment, until he 
has received the impression ; he then analyzes his sensations, searches 
for their causes in the object, and satisfies himself that his sensations are 
correct and why they are produced. Much more should this be the case 
in respect to writings which are rather anomalies than works of art. 


ἱ 
. ᾿ Re phe 
ἐν ᾿ or Ἵ 

, hime " ΄ 


ΠΝ uy κι. semen y Wats 
a ἡ j ssn Hey vin’ ἴων 
ἂν Bett da ls Hist: : i Η De eh BIAE Ὑν 
ΤῊΣ τινὲ εἰ Pe) key als , een pane bist, oben ᾿ 
Plone 10 aoa of) ἀπ ὐβοιπιουραρ ¢ dept ont 
dl ws othe ated: ἕν. ΜῊΝ ere uc peer ἡ WR, ot a 
ate | ae i 

"ἢ iW SORT Mot RE pile tik εὐσάρ: ἘΠ... 

pet ee 


" ian iad ἣν weiner et παῖ ἣν Wer titted yf ᾿ εἰμ! οἷν, 
ΝΣ whe: “αὐ, ἡ μι) τοῦ χῦτι (ἢ! “μὴ ΟΝ Ἂ 
᾿ ile {ty | 

ὟΝ τ ΓΝ δ εν Rea ὙΜΑΤ aah ΩΝ φῳ 2A ; 
ΤΥ, ὃ Ἷ ν᾿ Ἷ 


ea) si ἡ ΜΝ SIP eae Qe quer é va” Tite - 


ae ye | 
a ἂν μονα ee: sid ee ae ak iat mana Has tid HO RA αὐ ὅτ... aoa 
ἣν ΟΝ rs Ric OA We EVE: ERAN HE UA ἀν: οἰ ἢ qe ous bavtonn® r 
Ἃ acre iii fark) Tiga ct title Sai ραν am ae ΝΣ σεν ; 
| wait gi er dal ‘aaah eg sige disap Long, ad Rent cate Gate 
Rida ded ἀν γε geal Leaving. Foe ΠΥ Κα  ΥΥΕῚ + neg 


ΠΝ aA ᾿ 
ΠΝ ΤΉ. 
ας ᾿ Are) + 


. INTRODUCTION ‘ 


TO THE 


SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


ΤΑΝ Lt. 


CHAP. I. 


THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


§ 1. 


We find in ancient Mss. a twofold order, in which the Gospels are 
arranged. They stand either thus: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; or ~ 
thus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The first arrangement is made 
with reference to the character and rank of the persons; the Apostles 
taking precedence of their assistants and attendants (απολούϑοις, co- 
mitibus). It is observed in the most ancient Latin versions,! and in the } 
Gothic ; sometimes, also, in the works of Latin fathers ;* and in one only ον 
of all the Greek Mss., viz. that at Cambridge. 

The other order, viz. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, is the common and 
established one in all the ancient versions of Asia and Africa, in all 
catalogues of the canonical books, and in Greek Mss. generally. Pay- 
ing no regard to personal relations, it follows the order of time, and isa. , 
plain indication what accounts in regard to the succession of the Evan- 
gelists were current among the Asiatic, Greek, and African churches, 
at the time when the Christian Scriptures were collected and arranged.* 

The same statement, although ina mutilated form, is still extant in 


1 Codd. Brix., Veronens., Vercellens. and, in part, Vindobonens. 


2 Tertullian. L. IV. Ady. Marcion c. 2. “‘ Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis 
Johannes et Mattheus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant.”’ 


3 Luke’s Acts of the Apostles is his δεύτερος λόγος, the second part of his 
Gospel. (See below ὃ 71.) ὙΠῸ two books, therefore, as belonging together, 
should have been united. This might easily have been done, if it had been 

__ thought proper to assign Luke’s Gospel a place after John’s. But it was consid- 
4 ered best violently to separate the two part, rather than permit the succession 
of the Evangelists to take an order at variance with history. 


310 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Epiphanius,! and in the Church History and Chronicon of Eusebius.” 
Eusebius concurs in the main, if not in every particular, with the Cyp- 
rian bishop. It can therefore make no difference which of the two 
accounts we examine; but we will give the preference to the father 
of Church History. After quoting for some time statements of other 
persons respecting John, he says in his own words: Let us now spe- 
cify his undisputed writings. Here we must first of all mention his 
Gospel, which is acknowledged by all the churches under heaven ; 
and that it certainly was properly placed by the ancients, in the fourth 
place, after the other three, is evident from what follows . . . . Matthew, 
who taught at first among the Jews, published his Gospel in his native 
ΜῊ language, when he went to visit other nations, in order, by written in- 
τι τς. struction, to make amends to those whom he left for his absence.2 When 
᾿ἐωγὰ, ~Mark and Luke had published their Gospels . . . . and these three had 
fallen into the hands of many persons, and among the rest into his own, 

aren = he accorded them his approbation and his testimony to their accu- 
racy; .-. only there were some deficiencies in them... - on 

which account John, it is said, by request, treated in his Gospel of the 

period which had been omitted by the rest and the actions of our Sa- 

_ viour which were included in it.” 

γε Δ, ~-— Long before these two writers, however, a learned biblical critic, Ori- 
/ / gen, had declared that Matthew was the oldest historical Christian wri- 
ter; Mark the second; Luke the third ; and John the last of the four.4 

Still further back, in the second century, Ireneus represents this 

) £7 fies» same chronological succession of the Evangelists as a matter about 
which there was no uncertainty or difference of opinion.? 

The Latins, although they did not adopt the chronological order in 
their copies, assigning the first rank to the Apostles and the next to 
their disciples, were not ignorant of the order of time in which they suc- 

4-1... ceeded each other. Jerome constantly asserts that Matthew wrote first, 
then Mark, then Luke, and last of all, John. The same is stated by 
Augustine.® 

The account contained in the celebrated fragment in Muratori 
mounts up more than a century above the days of these two fathers. 
According to this, Luke was third in the order of time in publishing his 
Gospel, and the beloved disciple last. Accident has destroyed the ac- 
count as to the two first.’ 

Whatever degree of discrepancy there may be between the costumes 
with which the fact is clothed by different writers, and however various 


~t port - 


Ε Epiphan. Her. LI. from the words: ἡ γὰρ πᾶσα τῶν εὐαγγελίων ὑπόϑεσις 
ουτως ἔχει... . . ; 

2 Euseb. H. E. Γ,. ΠΙ. 6. 24. 

3 It should perhaps be read: ἀφ᾽ ὧν διεστέλλετο. 

4 Euseb. H. Εἰ. VI. 25, Comp., also, Origen’s Homil. VII. in Josuam. T. If. 
Opp. Ruei. p. 412. “ acredotali tuba primus in evangelio suo Mattheus incre~ 
puit; Mareus quoque, etc.” Comment. in Jo. T. VI. p. 132. Opp. Vol. IV. 
* Aokdusvos ἀπὸ τοῦ Mardatov, ὃς καὶ παραδεδότας πρῶτος τῶν λοιπῶν τοῖς 
“Ἑβραίους ἐκδεδωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἔκ περιτομῆς πιστεύουσι. an 

5 Iren. L. JIT. Adv. Her. c. 1. Euseb. Η. E. V. 8. 

6 Augustin. De consensu Evangelist. L. 1. ὃ, 3. 


7 Antiqq. Ital. Medii evi. T. ΠῚ. p. 854. 


ὌΝ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9311] 


may be the Ὁ Ἢ from which they derived it, they all agree in respect 
to this chronological relation of the Evangelists, and are unanimous in 
assuring us that this was the real order of succession. 

One only must be excepted, viz. Clement of Alexandria, who as- | 
serts, that those Gospels which contain the genealogies were written 
first! This allegation does not, indeed, call in question the priority of - 
Matthew, but it assigns to Mark only the third place among the Evange- 
lists. He also refers expressly to his authority for this statement, against ἡ 
which I can only say that Origen, his pupil, and the fathers generally after 
him, considered the authorities which they followed to be so unques- 
tionable that not one of them concurred with the opinion of Clement ; 
and, moreover, that the historian by whom we have been apprised of 
this opinion, did not in consequence of it waver in his own belief a mo- 
ment. We may hence infer the confidence and certainty which the 
ancients felt in regard to the succession of the Evangelists; all being 
agreed respecting it but Clement. 

At the lowest estimate, these declarations of the ancient Christians must 
be regarded as making this order very probable, and requiring us to pro- 
ceed in our investigations accordingly, hoping they will be confirmed, 
but determined to reject them if they involve us in difficulties of impor- 
tance or lead us to absurd conclusions. 


§ 2. 


Of the four biographies of Jesus extant, that of Matthew is declared 
by history to be the oldest. She is, however, so contradictory in her testi- 
mony as to the precise time at which it was composed, and as to certain 
other points in regard to it, that we can expect no satisfactory informa- 
tion from her, but must refer the whole inquiry to the province of higher 
criticism. The inferences which we can draw as to the immediate pur- , 
poses of the writer from his mode of procedure, and as to the time at | 
which he wrote from the circumstances, which surrounded him, are in 
this case more to be relied on than either of the various accounts of 
antiquity. 

The scene of the events related is Judea; the persons introduced 
are mostly natives of that country ; the circle of thought, the religious 
and civil circumstances are Jewish, and very different from those of 
most of the nations of that period. 

Mark, who, like Matthew, wrote the life of Jesus, frequently finds it 
necessary, from regard to those whom he expected to be his readers, to WV 
explain certain peculiarities in Jewish customs and opinions. The 
Pharisees, he relates, complained that the disciples of Jesus ate κοέναις 
χερσίν, i.e. literally, with common hands. Supposing that his readers 
might not be acquainted with the Jewish signification of this expression, 
he subjoins the explanation: that is to say, with unwashen hands, tout 
ἔστεν avinrorg. Still apprehending that they might not thoroughly 
comprehend the ground of this complaint and the reply made toit, he 
explains the occurrence by an observation on the customs and opinions 


1 Προγεγράφϑαι ἐλέγετο τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίαρ. Euseb. 
Η. E. VJ. 14. 


m_m 


312 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS ὰ 


of the Pharisees, stating that they never eat without washing their hands 
and would think themselves, in case they were to do so, defiled. He ex- 
plains what the παρασκευή meant among the Jews, by saying, i. 6. 
the day before the sabbath, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε προσαββατον ; and likewise what 
was meant by κορβᾶν, as Josephus did for his Roman readers. 
atthew relates these same things, as well as many others, often even 
‘using the same expressions ; but he abstains from any addition by way 
‘of explanation, taking it for granted that all was familiar to his readers 
/ already. 

Luke makes numerous observations of a geographical nature, in or- 
der to inform his friend Theophilus, (for whose use primarily the work 
was composed,) as far as possible in consistency with due brevity, in re- 
gard to the places which were the theatre of particular events. 

This is not Matthew’s custom. As he deems it superfluous to add 
explanatory observations in respect to manners, customs, and opinions, 
peculiar as they all were to Palestine, so likewise as to geography, he 
seems to have no apprehension that his narrative might be obscure and 
unintelligible to any one of his readers from ignorance of the country, 
Cities, etc. 

In the twenty-second chapter, he does indeed attempt to assist the 
reader to comprehend definitely the objection of the Sadducees, by re- 
minding him that they deny the resurrection: of λέγοντες μη εἶναι 
ἀνάστασιν; but this explanation was necessary even to many of his 
own countrymen, for the opinions of this sect, though liked by the rich 
and powerful, as they favoured their dissolute mode of life, were (as we 
are told by Josephus,) far from being current among the people.’ 

Now whether he pursued this course because he intended his work 
for his own countrymen only, or because he had not had opportunity by 
travelling, as had Mark and Luke, to observe the customs of different 


nations and their dissimilarity from those of the Jews, the inference must 


be the same ; and we see from the author’s procedure, that Palestine was 
his circle of vision, and that the Jews of that country, or such foreign- 
ers as frequently came thither and were familiar with its customs, man- 
ners and peculiarities, were uppermost in his mind while preparing his 
narrative. 


§ 3. 


In considering, too, the practical scope of his history and the reflec- 
tions which he makes upon the actions of Jesus, the purpose and view 
with which he wrote are apparent. He frequently affords us an oppor- 
tunity of seeing clearly what, in his opinion, it was most important for 
his readers tounderstand. So long asa writer merely details events, he 
leaves us to pass our own judgment upon them; but as soon as he be- 
gins to make reflections of his own, he ceases to be a bare narrator of 
facts, lets us into his own mind and makes us participate in his purpo- 
ses and views. 

All Matthew’s reflections are of one kind. He shewsus, as to every 


V thing that Jesus did and taught, that it was characteristic of the Mes- 


1 Joseph. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 1. ὃ 4. 


oa αὶ αἰ ἌΓ κα 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. S13 


siah. On occasion of remarkable events or a recital of partsof the dis- 
courses of Jesus, he refers us to the ancient Scriptures of the Jews, in 
which this coming Saviof is delineated, and shows, in detail, that the 
great ideal, which flitted before the minds of the prophets, was realized 
in Jesus. This idea he carries with him through his whole narrative ; 
while Mark and Luke seldom quote passages from the Old Testament, 
and generally never except when they are put into the mouth of some 
person speaking in the history, in which case they are parts of the nar- 
ration, and not the reflections of the historian himself. Without reck- 
oning the passages Matt. 1:23. 2: 6, 15, 18, the following, 3: 9. 4: 14. 
8: 17. 12: 17. 18: 35. 21: 4. 26: 56. 27: 9, are each quoted with the 
words : ὅπως or ἵνα πληρωϑὴ τὸ ῥηϑέν, and taken together in their con- 
nexion and situation, leave no doubt in respect to the main purpose 
of the writer. 

This book, therefore, deserved to be denominated εὐαγγέλέον, or the 
cheering annunciation of the Messiah, an appellation which was sub- 
sequently applied to all the other biographies of Jesus, although their 
particular design was very different from that of Matthew. 


ᾧ 4. 


If it was the principal aim of the writer to show that Jesus was the 
Messiah, it must have been his object not so much to present a complete 
history chronologically arranged and descending to the minutest details, 
as to bring events under one general view which should display the dignity 
of his person and character, and to select facts that would exhibit a bold 
outline which was not to be filled up minutely. This Matthew has 
done. At the commencement of the ministry of Jesus, he presents 
in one view a summary of his doctrines drawn from many discourses, 
combining them in the well-known Sermon on the Mount, which, as is 
now admitted, consists of several discourses delivered at different times. 


In like manner he has thrown together the parables of Jesus, though — 


delivered at different times and places, into one collection (Chap. 13, 
14), these parables affording proof that Jesus corresponded with the 
promised Saviour in respect to his mode of teaching, viz. in parables, 


which was foretold by the prophets to be a characteristic of the Mes- ~ 


siah (18: 35). The aim of the writer, therefore, would lead us to ex- 
pect, not so much a biography arranged in chronological order, as a 
concise exhibition of the character and objects of Jesus, containing 
facts selected for this special purpose, and excluding all details which 
that did not require. As the Platonic father, Justin Martyr, denomi- 
nates the Gospels generally, ἀπομνημονεύματα, we might compare this 
book of Matthew with Xenophon’s Memorabilia, to which it has an ev- 
ident resemblance in its plan and arrangement. 


§ 5. 


From some hints scattered in the book, it would seem that a long pe- 
riod elapsed after the events before the time when it was composed. 
δεν often avers that traces of certain occurrences still existed in 

e country at the time when he wrote, and expresses himself as one 

' 40 


314 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 
.. 


would ΤῊ of things that happened a considerable while ago. (27: 8. 
28: 15. 

In narrating the condemnation of Jesus, he explains a circumstance 
which he must have thought would not be perfectly familiar to his read- 
ers. The circumstance is that of Pilate’s proposing Jesus and Barab- 
bas to the people, that they might set one of them at liberty, to which 

ἃ Matthew adds the remark, that it was customary at that feast for the 
Pretor to liberate any one prisoner whom the people desired. (27: 15.) 
This was a circumstance which, as an immunity founded on custom, 
could not very soon be forgotten.! 

The passage, 23: 35, which mentions Zacharias, the son of Bara- 
chias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, is still more de- 
cisive in fixing definitely upon the time at which the Gospel was com- 
posed. There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact, 

( its circumstances, and the object of Jesus. in citing it, that it was the 

™~ same Ζαχαρίας Bagovyou, who, according to Josephus, a short time be- 
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the midst of the 
temple. The name is the same, the murder and the remarkable cir- 
cumstance which distinguishes it correspond, as well as the character 
of the man, τὸ λίαν τ᾽ ανδρὺς μισοπόνηρον, his strict probity, and like- 
wise his speaking the truth undauntedly to the Jews, as did the wise 
men and prophets. Moreover, when Jesus says, that all the innocent 
blood which had been shed, from Abel to Zacharias, should be avenged 
upon the Jews, the ἀπὸ and ἕως denote the beginning and the end of a 
period, put for all the events coming between. The period ends with 
Zacharias; he was to be the last before this vengeance should be exe- 
cuted. The threatened vengeance, however, is, that Jerusalem shall 
be given up to destruction and become desolate. (23: 37, 38.) Must it 
not then have been the same Zacharias, whose death is distinguished 
in history, among so many murdered, as that of the only righteous man 
between the death of Ananias the High Priest andthe destruction of 
the Holy City? 

The Zacharias whois mentioned in 2 Chron. 24: 20, 21, is not the one 
here intended. He was ason of Jehoida, put to death, not between the 
temple and the altar, or ἐν μέσῳ τῷ ναῷ but in the court; nor was he 
the last of those unjustly slain, or one with whom an epoch in the Jew- 
ish annals terminates. Was there no other righteous man slain after 
the days of king Joash, in which this happened? and were not the oth- 
ers to be avenged? Was punishment then inflicted for all the innocent 
blood that had been shed? Was that period an epoch in history, re- 
markable as a period of general judgment upon the Jewish nation? 

It is plain, moreover, that this Zacharias is represented by Jesus as a 
person yet to come. He says: Isend you wise men and prophets, 
whom ye shall scourge, slay and persecute, μαστιγωσέτε, OTAUQWOETE, 
διώξετε, that the punishment of all innocent blood from Abel to Zach- 
arias may comeupon you. Here Zacharias terminates the list of right- 


1 This and the subsequent observations from which I have ventured to draw 
an inference TenpanhiNy the time when the book was composed, have, since 
their first publication, obtained the concurrence of a celebrated scholar. See 
Eichhorn’s Einleit. in N. T. 1. Th. p. 507. seq. , 


7% ΄ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 918 


eous persons on whom the Jews were subsequently to Jay hands, whom 
they were yet to scourge and crucify, and for whose blood they were to 
be answerable. 

Jesus, therefore, spoke prophetically of the Zacharias whom Jose- 
phus mentions (Bell. Jud. LV. c.6.n. 4), whose death occurred long after 
Christ. Now Matthew, in relating the words of Jesus, represents him 
through the whole prophetic passage as expressing himself in the future 
tense and speaking of Zacharias as one yet to suffer; but when he 
comes to the murder, he reveals his knowledge that it had already 
taken place, and, instead of putting the fact, as he should have done, in- 
to the mouth of our Lord in the future tense, he speaks of it expressly - 
as an event already past, and says: ov ἐφυονεύσατε μεταξὺ etc., whom 
ye slew between the temple and the altar. 

The event occurred some time after the conquest of Gamala, which 
took place in the month Hyperbereteus, our October. After this Jo- 
sephus reckons one spring and one winter, then a summer in which the 
death of Nero occurred. Here then we have the time of the occur- 
rence of this event, which was in the mind of the writer, when he com- 
posed his book, as a thing that had already taken place. 

Another circumstance of a similar kind thrown out in his book re- 
fers us to the same period. In aconversation in regard to the destruc- 
tion of the temple and of the Jews as a nation, (c. 24,) Jesus tells his 
disciples the signs of the approach of this event, and in particular, one 
relative to the temple, which, when perceived, was to be the signal for 
flight. When, says he, ye shall see the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως stand- 
ing in the holy place, then flee. History has preserved but two occur- 
rences in the temple before its entire destraction, to which this expres- 
sion is applicable, and which, on account of their intimate relation to 
the destruction of this splendid edifice and of the whole country, may 
be regarded as prognostics and occasions of destruction and ruin. 
The second of these, however, was but asequel of the first. The wild- 
est of the zealots, a band of robbers, who assumed the appellation of 
zealots for their country, took possession of the temple, made the sanct- 
uary a place of arms and the seat of their tyranny and murderous 
deeds. The high priest Ananias, who still hoped to effect a reconcilia- 
tion with the Romans, attempted to expel the zealots from the temple ; 
but in vain. Henceforth they continued the dominant party, making 
the temple a fortress and the centre of the war, from which they direct- 
ed the fate of Jerusalem and in which they maintained themselves 
against the Romans until it was destroyed by fire. 

Thus was the holy place defiled by detestable deeds ; the abomination 
ofdesolation was in its midst. Even Josephus sees in these events the 
presage of the inevitable destruction of the whole state according to the 
prediction of the prophets. 


1 ᾿Εγέλατό τε τὰ ϑεῖα, καὶ τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν ϑεσμοὺς, ὥσπερ ἀγυρτιρκὲς hoyo— 
moving ἐχλεύαζον. Πολλὰ δὲ οὕτοι περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας προς ἔσπισαν, ἃ 
παραβάντες ov ζηλωταὶ, καὶ τὴν κατὰ τῆς πατρίδος προφητείαν τέλους ἠξίωσαν. 
“Hy γὰρ δὴ nal mg παλαιὸς λόγος ἀνδρῶν ἔνϑα τότε τὴν πόλιν αλώσεσϑαι, κατα-- 
λεγήσεσϑαι τὰ ἅγια νόμῳ πολέμου, στάσις ἐὰν κατασκήψῃ, καὶ χεῖρες οἰκδίαν 
ITPOMIAN®SI τὸτοῦ Θεοῦ τέμενος, x. τ. ἢ. (Bell. Jud. L. IV. 6. 6. n. 8.) 


316 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


They had not long held the temple, when in order to make sure of 
its continued possession and of superiority over those who were peacea- 
bly disposed, they called to their aid the Idumeans, a heathen people, 
who not only profaned the temple by their unholy presence, but even 
perpetrated a horrible massacre within it, so that the outer temple 
streamed with blood. 

It matters not to our purpose which of these two events, if they may 
be regarded as distinct, be considered the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. 
They are certainly the only events which history presents, that can be 
thus designated, or rather they are the only remarkable occurrences rel- 
ative to the temple, previous to its complete destruction, which are 
mentioned in history at all. Both took place immediately before the 
death of Zacharias. 

Now when Matthew, in recounting the language of our Lord on this 
subject, comes to what he said respecting the abomination of desolation 
in the temple, he suddenly interrupts our Saviour’s words with an apos- 
trophe to his readers: “ When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination 
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, 
whoso readeth let him understand, then let them which be in Judea flee 
to the mountains.” 

Matthew must have found occasion for this exclamation in the exist- 
ing condition of things. As the passage relates to the signal for flight, 
and he exhorts his readers not to let it pass unnoticed, it must have ex- 
isted and been apparent then ; the admonition of Jesus must have re- 
ferred to events of that period, and the sign, the abomination of desola- 
tion in the holy place, ro βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἀγίῳ, 
must have made a deep impression on his mind. 

Such were the circumstances of the time when Matthew wrote the 
Jast chapters of his book. The passage cannot have been written at a later 
period. When these scenes occurred in Jerusalem, the Romans were 
already in possession of Galilee, and were on the eve of conquering Ju- 
dea. Had they already taken it, the warning to the inhabitants of Ju- 
dea to take advantage of this signal for flight would have been useless. 


§ 6. 


These circumstances, moreover, were the immediate inducements to 
his undertaking and to the plan of his work. Both during and before 
the civil commotions of the Jews, as we are assured by Josephus, Taci- 
tus, and Suetonius, the idea was current among them that the time was 
not far distant in which their deliverer and the restorer of their inde- 
pendence, the Messiah, wouldappear. This belief, as is observed by 
the writers above mentioned, contributed in no small degree to animate 
their resolution to begin the war and to maintain it with obstinacy. — 

The rebellion which was commenced against the Romans united the 
whole nation tegether in one common interest. With fanatical en- 
thusiasm all again became Jews; and Christianity must thus have lost 
many of its followe 

In the midst of such ideas and circumstances, Matthew wrote his 
sketch of the actions, doctrines, and miracles of Jesus, referring to the 
ancient sacred booksin which, confessed] y, were scattered the lineaments 


bm 


i 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ole 


of the Messiah’s portrait. He proved that he had already appeared in 
the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that his life and his actions accorded re- 
markably with the representations of the prophets. This was a grievous 
attack upon the raised hopes and the delusions of the leading insurgents, 
as well as upon the principal ground on which they had swayed public 
opinion. 

Many might learn from this book, in which Jesus foretold the destruc- 
tion of the religious and civil constitution, the temple and the holy city, 
how little success was to attend the present efforts, and how much more 
to their advantage it would be to continue faithful to the patient sect 
of Christians. 

It would have a tendency, too, when the temple was actually destroy- 
ed, and all the splendour of the Jewish worship, feasts and sacrifices 
had come to an end, to cause a considerable part of the surviving Jews 
to embrace Christianity and, after the accomplishment of these events, 
the occurrence of which had been foretold so early in his book by Jesus, 
to acknowledge him as their Teacher and their king Messiah, who had 
founded a kingdom of virtue and truth for the children of Israel. The 
work was designed to preserve from apostasy those who were already 
disciples of Christianity, and to prepare the way for future conversions 
from Judaism. 


§ 7. 


Such was the result. The new system had many steadfast adherents 
among the Jews, and after the destruction of Jerusalem gained many 
more, who, however, in Palestine and every where else, were reluctant 
to abandon any part of Judaism, but wished to unite it with the religion 
of the Messiah. They were themselves divided in their tenets, and form- 
ed two sects known under the name of Nazarenes and Ebionites. 

The Ebionites were particularly distinguished by their ardent adhe- 
rence to the Law and to Judaism, and by peculiar tenets in regard to 
Christ’s superior nature. ‘They rejected all the religious books of the 


Christians, and had in their stead a single historical account of the acts é 


of Jesus which they called κατὰ Mat@aiov,! and which, from its being 
composed in the Hebrew language, is also called εὐαγγέλιον xad ‘EB- 
αἰους. 

3 The Nazarenes, also, who were skilled in the Hebrew language and 
continued till a late period to read in that language the sacred books of 
their nation, retained their ancient reverence for the religion of their 
fathers, and likewise possessed a Jewish representation of the Chris- 
tian doctrines in a work which is cited under the title τὸ za0’ “EB- 
ραίους εὐαγγελίον ; sometimes, though seldom, under the title κατὰ 77ατ- 
ϑαῖον; and which, as a book relative to the Messiah, may have been 
regarded as a supplement to their Jewish canon. 

The question hence arises: May not Matthew have originally written 
his Gospel in the Hebrew language? 


1 Treneus. L. I. Adv. Her. c. 26. L. III. c. 11. ἕ 
2 Euseb. Η. E. L. III. c. 27. Epiphan. Heres. XXX. 


318 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Aires οὐκ). 7)6 ς 8 


2 In fact, we are assured from another quarter, viz. by orthodox fathers, 
. “G@+that this was the case: Papias’ says: Matthew wrote his history in the 
_c.. *, Hebrew language.! This testimony, it is true, loses very much of its 
- weight, as Eusebius, through whom it comes to us, observes at the same 
δι “~'¥"time that this father was of very weak understanding, mavu σμικρὸς 
τὸν νοῦν. Eusebius, who possessed his writings, could judge more cor- 
rectly on this point than we can; but as Papias has been taken under 
the protection of learned men, (who might wish him somewhat more 
acute to suit their purpose,) we will readily admit that he was only a lit- 

tle weak of understanding. 

If we were not to consider the subject of our inquiry as a critical 
question, and were to regard his testimony not as his own account, but 
as merely committed to writing by him, he would merit some attention, 
inasmuch as he is represented by the ancients to have been very indus- 
trious in the collection of oral traditions, from which his writings were 
subsequently compiled. 

But in this case, as we are not previously assured of the writer’s judg- 
ment, it is important that we should be informed of the sources whence his 
(no doubt) honest statements were derived, to make amends for his lim- 
ited discernment. ‘These authorities, which were necessary, on account 
of his feeble abilities, to accredit what he says, Papias has not adduced. 

Is it not possible that he derived his account of a Hebrew text of 
Matthew from the sect of the Ebionites or the Nazarenes? and if he 
did, of what value would his statement be? 

He certainly received direct or indirect information from that quar- 
ter, particularly in respect to the Gospel of the Hebrews, a passage of 
which he cited in his writings. He quotes, likewise, (says Eusebius, ἢ. 
E. L. 111. fin.) from the first Epistle of John, also from the first of 
Peter, and expatiates upon a story of a woman accused before our Lord 
of many sins, which is contained in the Gospels of the Jewish Chris- 
tians: ἣν τὸ xa “Αβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιξγει. 

Now how much confidence can the historical inquirer repose in the 
testimony of a man, who always relied upon reports and oral traditions, 
whose capacity of judging concerning them was very limited, and whose 
authorities, according to clear indications in this particular case, are very 
suspicious ? ’ 

I do not assert, as I have been charged with asserting, that either 
Papias or Eusebius himself read the Jewish Gospel; but only that the 


1 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 39. Περὶ δὲ Marduiov ταῦτα εἰρήταιε " Ματϑαῖος μὲν 
οὖν “Εβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο. 

2 The severe judgment of Eusebius is founded, not merely (as Michaelis sup- 
poses, in his Introd. Th. II. ὃ. 133, 4th ed.) on the ‘fact that Papias believed 
in a Millennium, and understood certain parables too literally, but on the whole 
tenor of his writings, in which he adopted as genuine the most absurd parables 
and discourses attributed to our Lord, and many other fabulous things, καΐ 
τινα ἄλλα μυϑιυκώτερα, among which wasthe Millennium. The stories which 
Eusebius has extracted from him are not the standard by which we should judge 
ofhim. He naturally selected for his history, not what was most fabulous, 
but what was most useful and most probable. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 319 


former, as he always depended upon ancient traditions, probably receiv- 
ed information second or third hand from Jewish Christians. We 
have even some evidence of this in his compilations, for one narrative 
contained in the Jewish Gospel was specified by him on account of its 
singularity. The words: ἣν τὸ x00 ᾿Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει, 
do not necessarily belong to Eusebius as ἃ remark of his own; they 
may have been in the account given by Papias, to whom the story may 
have come with this addition. 

The objection that Eusebius has designated the authority Papias had 
for his statement, viz. John the Presbyter,! would be of much more im- 
portance, if it were not based onan assumption. John is, indeed, spok- 
en of befcre in reference to the Gospel of Mark; but Eusebius does 
not say that the subsequent statement in respect to the Gospel of Mat- 
thew comes from the same source. We have no right to add any thing 
to him, but must take him as he is. He separates the two accounts, con- 
cludes the first and then begins the second: περὶ δὲ τοῦ Matdaiov 
ταῦτα εἴρηται, where undoubtedly, we must supply τῷ Παπίᾳ; but 
we are far from being authorised to understand: ὑφηγήσαντος τοῦ αὐ- 
ὧν πρεσβυτέρου. We shall refer to this testimony again hereafter. 

11. 

ἜΚΑΝΝ who makes these assertions is Irenus.” Παξέλειο, Βα γ5 ῃ6, _ 
published his Gospel among the Jews in their own language. Ireneus, /., . ; 
however, was not only so well acquainted with Papias that he may be. 
suspected of borrowing his account from him, but valued him highly, “ 
and mentions him with so high an encomium for Ireneus to bestow, 
that we may find in it, not merely ground for a supposition, but a pretty 
clear indication that if he had read this account in Papias he would have 
regarded it as perfectly authentic. This, says he, in reference to the 
point of which he is treating, is recorded by Papias, who was one of 
John’s hearers, a contemporary of Polycarp, one of the ancients, in the 
fourth book of hiséEnynoimy λογίων κυθεαπῶω ν. 

With Irenzus it was amply sufficient reason why his account should 
be received with entire confidence, that he was contemporary and ac- 
quainted with Polycarp, whom Ireneus venerated very highly. Now in 
forming our opinion whether lrenzus depended upon Papias, let all these 
facts be considered together; and to these it may be added that, in the 
same passage in which he heaps these encomiums upon Papias, he rests 
his belief in a millennium upon the authority of this father. (LL. Κ΄. Adv. 
Her, ο. 33.) 7 

Now it was this very work, here quoted and eulogized by Irenzus, 
which contained the account of the Hebrew text of Matthew, and which 
Eusebius cites as above stated ; so that there can be no doubt that Ire- ὡς 
nus himself saw and read this statement of Papias in his writings. (7. 
E. L. IIL. fin.) 

The third witness is Origen, according to Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 25. 
This father possessed a particular acquaintance with languages and much 


1 f 
. ¢ 


1 Prof. Hermann Olshausen, “ Die Echtheit der kanonischen vier Evangeli- 
en aus der Geschichte der zwey ersten Jahrhundertes.” K6nigsb. 1823. p- 238 
and 92. 


Ἵ 2 Iren. L. III. Adv. Her. c.1. Euseb. Η. E. L. V. c. 8. ie 
ὶ te 7... orice, Lome. of rar. or 4 ἔν δ 


(LAA 


320 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


general knowledge, and we might expect from him, on account of the 
importance of the subject, an opinion founded on deep investigation. 
He was capable of deciding the question properly. But the writer 
through whom his declaration respecting the Hebrew text of this Gos- 
pel comes to us, honestly observes, that the assertion of Origen was not 
the result of any critical research, but that he appealed to tradition in 
its behalf: ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαϑών. Now if the παράδοσις was worthy 
of credence, it came from ancient and respectable fathers. Such an 
one was indeed current when Origen wrote, and we know its author. 
There were Christian fathers and Jewish Christians who concurred with 
it, and formed the common opinion on which Origen’s judgment was 
founded. 

Eusebius himself is the last witness that deserves attention. (H. E. 
L. III. c. 24.) Vhis learned man asserts that the original text of Mat- 
thew was Hebrew; he likewise denies this position. As a historian and 
collector, following authorities which, as we see, he faithfully specifies, 
he asserts it; but as a philologist and biblical investigator he arrives at 
a different conclusion. In his commentary on the Psalms he remarks, 
that Matthew, as one who was himself master of the Hebrew language, 
cited the words: φϑέγξομαι προβλήματα an’ ἀρχῆς (Ps. 77,) accord- 
ing to his own translation (he is commenting on the Greek phraseology 
employed by the LXX, whom Matthew deserted, rendering the passage 
differently) as follows: ἀντὲ τοῦ φϑέγξομαι an’ ἀρχῆς, ᾿δβραῖος ὧν ὃ 
Πατϑαῖος οἰκείᾳ ἐχδόσει κέχρηται εἰπών ἐκρεύξομαν κεχρυμμένα 
wt. A. 

Now, if we trace all the testimonies to their source we find that the en- 
tire historical deduction in behalf of a Hebrew original of Matthew rests 
on the declaration of the Jewish Christians, a sect of whom, called 
Ebionites, possessed a book in their language which they called κατὰ 
“Πατϑαῖον. and, like every other sect, boasted that theirs was the only 
authentic and complete religious book,” in which allegation, perhaps, 
the Nazarenes likewise concurred with them, and in favor of which 
they contrived to prepossess some of the Christian fathers, through whom 
the statement gained additional credit and currency. 


§ 9. 


But might not even Jewish Christians tell the truth and be worthy of 
credence? The Ebionites formed a numerous body among the adhe- 


1 “ May he not have written in Syriac, and thus have translated the passage 
from the Hebrew into Syriac? Eusebius asserts elsewhere (Dem. Evang. L. II. 
p. 73. and 88. Rob. Steph.) that the Apostles understood no language but Syri- 
ac.” Theol. Quartalschrift. Tubingen. 1822. 3tes. Heft. p. 462.) He has, indeed, as- 
serted this, without considering that in that case the whole N.T. must have 
been written in Syriac. In his commentaries, however, a later work, he speaks 
differently, and exactly as I have stated the matter. He says that Matthew 
abandoned the | hraseology of the LXX, and like a Hebraist, translated in his 
own way: ἐκρεύξομαι x, τ. 2. ‘Aquila, however, has in his translation, instead 
of this, ὀμβρήσω αἰνίγματα ἐξ ἀρχῆϑεν ; and Symmachus, ἀναβλύσω προβλήμα-- 
τὰ ἀρχοῖα.᾽" (p. 463,464.) Did Matthew, then, write his Gospel in Syriac and 
cite passages in it from the O. T. inthe Greek Language? 


2 Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν (εὐαγγελίων) σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον. Eusb. H. E. L. III. c. 27. 


wy 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 321 


rents to Christianity, and on this account, together with that of their an- 
tiquity, their statement lays claim to our attention. 

The more ancient records assign their origin to a much earlier pe- 
riod than some later historians. Jreneus, who, mentions the Ebionites, 
(L. J. ¢. 26,) speaks of them next after Cerinthus, immediately before 
the Nicolaitans; Eusebius, however, places them next to Menander, 
the disciple of Simon, before Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans. In this 
arrangement, it is clear, he followed the order of time; for, after speak- 
ing of the Ebionites, he proceeds: About the same time, κατὰ τοὺς 
δεδηλουμένους χρόνους, appeared Cerinthus, another leader of the 
heretics; lastly with these also, ἐπὶ τούτων δῆτα, (he saysin the follow- 
ing paragraph, ) the heresy of the Nicolaitans. (41. Τὶ. L. HI. c.26, 27, 
28.) Jerome mentions among the heretics whom John opposes in his 
Gospel, the then rising sect of the Ebionites, ‘‘ et maximetunc Ebionita- 
rum dogma consurgens.” (Catal. V. Jo. and Proem. in Matth.) Epipha- 
nius says, that according to the accounts which had come down to him, 
the sect of the Ebionites took its rise at the time, when, after the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, the Christians settled in Perea, particularly in 
Pella and the adjoining region. (Har. XXX.) In thetime of Hadrian, 
they already reckoned among their number such distinguished men as 
Theodotion and Aquila, and, as early probably, among their opponents 
Justin Martyr, who, as we are informed by Theodoret, wrote in oppo- 
sition to them. We know that his book against the heretics was of 
older date than his apology, because this refers to the former and was 
composed very shortly after the second Jewish war, which he calls in it 
TOV νῦν γενόμενον NOAEMOL. 

Respecting the antiquity and rise of the Nazarenes, we have not so 
certain information. ‘They were sometimes omitted by the Heresiolo- 
gists, either because they were included by them among the Ebionites, 
or because they were regarded with more favor. 

Their book, like that of the Ebionites, is no longer extant; but sev- 
eral fragments of it which have been preserved, afford us materials for 
judging respecting it. ‘To do this, we must see how far into antiquity 
its existence can be traced, and what part of its actual contents can be 
discovered, in order that we may not decide a priori a historical ques- 
tion which must be settled by evidence. 

The writer who has treated this subject most at length, is Jerome. 
He himself obtained this book from the Nazarenes, and translated it 
into the Greek and Latin languages. ‘This clearly shows that he was 
familiarly acquainted with it; and he is to be considered as authority 
in investigations respecting it. He himself guides us as to its antiquity, 
and furnishes some data for determining the period at which it origina- 
ted. In particular, he informs us that Origen sometimes quoted it in 
his writings, and of this we may now be convinced on comparison. In 
such works of both as are still extant, there are appeals to the same 
passages in this Gospel. Jerome in his commentary on Micah 8: 6 
says: “Qui... . crediderit Evangelio quod secundum Hebreos ed- 
itum nuper transtulimus, in quo de persona Salvatoris dicitur: Modo 
tulit me mater mea spiritus sanctus in uno capillorum meorum, non 
dubitabit dicere sermonem Dei ortum esse de spiritu, et animam que 
sponsa sermonis est, Bre socrum s. spiritum, qui apud Hebreos 


322 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


genere dicitur foeminino.’ ’— Origen, in his fifteenth Homily on Jeremiah 
and in his Commentary on John, 1 says: ἐὰν δὲ προσίξταί τις τὸ καϑ' 
Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, ἔνϑα αὐτὸς 0 σωτήρ φησίν, ἄρτι ἐλαβέ μὲ ἢ 
μητήρ μου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν μίᾳ τῶν τριχῶν μου καὶ ἀπένεγχξ μὲ εἰς 
τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα Θάβωρ. There are, therefore, evident traces of its ex- 
istence thus early, and even as far back as the time of Origen’s precep- 
tor,” if he meant the same as his pupil by zo καϑ' ᾿Δβραίους εὐαγγέλιον. 
He presents us the following passage from it: 6 ϑαυμάσας Bacckevose 
καὶ ὁ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαυϑήσεται. 

There are indications of its existence very much earlier, which are 
capable of being moulded into a systematic argument. Ignatius, the 
Martyr, in his Epistle to the church at Smyrna, mentions some words of 
Jesus which are not in our Gospels, but, to judge from the connexion, 
were taken from some written document. ‘They are the following : 
καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἤλϑεν, ἔφην αὐτοῖς, λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ 
μὲ χαὶ ἔδετε, ὅτε οὔκ εἰμι δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον, καὶ EVILS αὐτοῦ 
ἥψαντο, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. 

If ἃ Gospel of the Hebrews was in existence, the bishop of Antioch 
in Syria would very probably from his situation possess it, and could hard- 
ly be unacquainted with it. ‘The words, too, really stood in the Jewish 
Gospel, from which Jerome has extracted them in part in the preface to 
his eighteenth book on Isaiah: “Cum enim eum putarent spiritum, 
vel juxta Evangelium, quod Hebraicum lectitant Nazareni, incorporale 
demonium, dixit eis, quid turbati estis et cogitationes ascendunt in cor- 
da vestra, videte manus meas et pedes meos, ete.” But in his catalogue 
of Christian writers, he expressly asserts, ‘in treating of Ignatius, that 
these very words were found in the Jewish Gospel : ‘‘ Scripsit etad Smy- 
nzos, in quo et de Evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super per- 
sona Christi ponit testimonium dicens. ... . Et quando venit ad Pe- 
trum et ad eos, qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis ; Ecce, palpate me et videte, 
quia non sum demonium incorporale : et statim tetigerunt eum et credi- 
derunt.” 

From these observations, the book is probably of high antiquity, and 
its origin dates at a period reached by the Apostles or shortly after. It 
would. appear from the fragments which yet exist in the productions of 
the Latin father, that it was neither very like, nor very unlike, to Mat- 
thew. 

In the remotest period in which the existence of the Jewish Gospel is 
capable of being shown and attested by historical proof, it appears to have 
been so different from our Matthew, that there is no ground from their 
contents to suppose the identity of the two writings. The evidences of its 
existence contained in Origen and Clement are as many proofs of its dis- 
similarity to Matthew; and that portion of history which relates to the 
events after the resurrection, to which the passage cited from Ignatius re- 
fers, is not treated at all by Matthew. Consequently, judging from the most 


1 Fabric. Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Test. P.I. p. 362. Ed. Hamb. 1719. These 
passages are likewise collected in the “ Neue Untersiohathe uber das Alter und 
ον des Evangeliums der Hebraer,” by Chr. Frederick Weber. Tubing. 
1806. 8vo. 


2 Clem. Alexandr. Lib. III. Strom. c. 9. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 323 


ancient evidences, it did not, in the earliest period of its existence, nor 
even in its plan, agree with our Matthew. 

Yet, although this book, according to the data we possess for deter- 
mining its age and contents, was a different work from Matthew, still 
the time of its origin, which very nearly approaches that of our Sa- 
vior, confers upon it some historical value. The appreciation of its val- 
ue is left by Origen, whenever he makes use of it, to the judgment of 
his readers ; but it is unconditionally assumed by ‘Tgnatius the Mar- 
tyr, as to the passage above mentioned. It was not, it is true, without 
absurdities, as is shown by the story that the Holy Spirit in the charac- 
ter of mother of Jesus, carried her son by one of his hairs to the 
top of Mount Tabor ; but this would not justify us in pronouncing the 
whole to be valueless, though it would justify us in subjecting its particu- 
lar parts, did we possess it entire, to a very rigid scrutiny. Some pas- 
sages of it which have been preserved contain sentiments which are re- 
ally of such a nature as not to be unworthy of our Lord, and may have 
been expressed by him in hischaracter of teacher. We are told by Je- 
rome, (e. g. Comment. in Ezek. XXIV. 7), that in this Gospel it was 
declared a great sin for any one to grieve the mind of his brother ; and 
in another place (Comm. in Ephes. V. 4), that our Lord was represented 
as saying to his disciples: Never be more joyful than when you see your 
brother happy—two admonitions in perfect accordance with the eleva- 
ted spirit of Christianity. 

Weare told by Jerome, that the Gospel of the Ebionites (for they like- 
wise had a Hebrew Gospel, )was no other than the Nazarene Gospel, which 
was used in common by the two sects. This father was master of the 
Hebrew language, and while in Palestine was habitually conversant with 
the Nazarenes, and probably with the Ebionites. 1 We-should therefore 
be released from all further i inquiry ,in regard to the age, value, and pur-y_ af 
port of the Ebionite Gospel, had not Epiphanius, a native of Palestine, ed-D ὁ 
ucated among the Jews and in their language, given us extracts from “ 
the Gospelof the Ebionites, which make us distrustful of Jerome’s state- 
ment. Among some other fragments, he has extracted from it the his- 
tory of Jesus’ baptism (Her. XXX.), which the Latin father has like- 
wise inserted from the Nazarene Gospel in his Commentary on Isaiah 
4:12. The narratives in the two books are so entirely dissimilar, that 
not a trace can be perceived of even original resemblance ; as may be 
here seen from eran 


Ἐς ba Bran olinn quo utuntur Nuzareni et Ebionite, quod nuper in Grecum 
de Hebreo sermone transtulimus.'’ (Comment. in Matth. XI. 13.) 


324 


Factum est autem, cum ascendis- | 
set Dominus de aqua, et fons omnis | 
spiritus sancti descendit et requievit | vou. 


super eum, et dixit illi: fili, in om- 
nibus prophetis exspectabam te, ut 
venires et reqiescerem super te, tu es 
enim requies mea, tu es filius meus 
primogenitus, qui regnas in sempi- 
ternum. 


THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Tov te λαοῦ βαπτισϑέντος ἦλϑε 
᾿]Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐβαπτίσϑη t ὑπὸ τοῦ "Τωάν-- 
Kat ὡς ἀνῆλϑεν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, 
ἠνοίγησαν ot οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῖ-- 
μα τοῦ ϑεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἔν εἴδει περισ-- 
τερᾶς κατελϑούσης εἰς αὐτὸν, καὶ φωνὴ 
ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσα " σύ 
μου εἷς ὃ υἱὸς δὺ γαπητὸς, ἐν σοί | εὐδό-- 
κησα ἐγὼ σήμερον 7εγέννηκά σε. Καὶ 


εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα, 
ὃ ἰδὼν 6 ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης λέχει αὐτῷ" σὺ 
τίς εἶ κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ ἐξ οἶρα- 
γοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν" οὗτος ἐστὶν ὃ υἱός 
μου, ὃ ὰ γαπητὸς ἐφ᾽ ὃν εὐδόκησα. Καὶ 

: τότε Ἰωάννης προσπέσων αὐτῷ λέγει" 
δέομαὲ σου κύριε, σύ με β βάπτισον. Ὅ 
δὲ ἐκώλυεν αὐτῷ " ἄφές, ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὲ 
πρέπον πληρωϑῆναι πάντα. 


It has been conjectured, out of respect for the testimony of the Latin 
father as to a matter concerning which circumstances would lead us to 
suppose he must have had accurate knowledge, that Epiphanius, who, 
as he himself says, discussed the Ebionite system and the opinions of 
the Elksaites or Sampszans together, by mistake confounded their tenets 
and their religious books.! But he was far too well acquainted with the 
writings of this branch of the Jewish school, an account of which is 
given by him in his treatise on the Osseans and Sampsezans, to do this ; 
and the care he takes to distinguish the Ebionite tenets declares the con- 
trary. He did indeed connect these Jewish sects together, on account 
of the similarity of their tenets, but he paid suitable attention to the 
pointsof difference. After stating some opinions peculiar to the Sampse- 
ans, he adds, that in these they differ from Ebion : ἤδη O€ "OL καὶ ἀνωτέ- 
ow 710008 εδήλωται, ὡς ταῦτα μὲν ᾿Εβίων οὐκ ἤδει. A little further on, 
he distinguishes the opinions of the ancient Ebionite sect from those 
defended ‘by its later disciples : ποτὲ μὲν αὐτὸς ᾿᾿βίων λέγων ἐκ παρα- 
τριβῆς ψιλὸν ἄνϑρωπον γεγενῆσϑαι" ἄλλοτε δὲ οἱ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ζβιοναῖοι. 
Such procedure proves that we need not fear being misled by a confu- 
sion of subjects. 

It was therefore the Ebionite book from which he derived these ex- 
tracts ; and however little it may resemble the Nazarene Gospel of Jer- 
ome, yet the Cyprian bishop seems to agree with the account of the 
Latin father. He speaks of both works under the same denominations, 
viz. κατὰ Mardaiov and εὐαγγέλιον ᾿Πβραϊκόν. He seems to derive 
them both from Matthew, and to ascribe their difference entirely to cor- 
ruptions, ommissions and additions, designating it by the γυνὴ 


1 Storr, “‘ Uber den Zweck der evang. See chitin ΗΝ der Briefe Johannis.”’ 
§ 33. ὃ 61. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 325 


πληρέστατον and ov πληρέστατον καὶ vevoderpevov,! whence he did 
not know whether the Nazarenes retained or rejected the genealo- 
gies. 

~ The following reason, too, for supposing an original identity, may be 
worthy of consideration. Jerome applies to the Nazarene Gospel the 
denomination secundum apostolos. “‘In Evangelio. . . . quo utuntur 
usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, 
juxta Mattheum” (Lib. 111. Adv. Pelag.); by which expression the 
contents are referred, not to Matthew alone, but to all the Apostles. 
This agrees with the Ebionite Gospel ; for at its commencement they are 
all represented as speaking of themselves in the first person: J'here 
was aman, named Jesus, who, when he was thirty years old, made choice 
of us; and then follows an enumeration, made by Jesus himself, of the 
names of the twelve, among whom in particular our Lord says to Mat- 
thew: And thee also, Matthew, did I call, while thou was sitting at the 
receipt of custom.” 

As allthe Apostles speak of themselves in this way at the outset, 
they all declare themselves partakers in the contents, and this Gospel is 
properly a Gospel secundum Apostolos, like that of the Nazarenes, 
though, as Jesus particularly distinguishes Matthew in his address, the 
latter may have had a principal share in it, and perhaps have had the 
entire arrangement of its contents. 

But be it as it may, whether there were one or two works originally, 
neither of the suppositions would lead us to a very flattering inference as 
to the purity of their evidence, which purity is indispensable to their his- 
toric credibility. Supposing this discrepancy to have arisen from ar- 
bitrary alterations on the part of the two sects, to annihilate all traces 
of original resemblance, contrary to the custom of the Jews, who regard- 
ed it as wicked and impious to venture such a thing in respect to a book 
acknowledged to be sacred, can we before the tribunal of criticism, as- 
cribe any high authority to the evidence of men who could proceed thus 
in regard toa religious book, either from caprice or to make it favor 
their opinions, although each party calls its book κατὰ Mardaior? 

If there were originally two different works, it is a certain proof that 
an excessive attachment to Judaism and a sectarian temper misled 
one of the sects and induced it to compose a book for itself in confor- 
mity with its prejudices and sentiments, or else arbitrarily to constitute 
some vorrei Hebrew Style ee was most consonant with 


1 Hmres, XKIX. De Nazorwis. Ἔχουσι δὲ τὸ κατὰ ἤϊατϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πλη-- 
ρέστατον ᾿Εβραϊστί. Tag’ αὐτοῖς γὰρ σαφῶς τοῦτο, καϑὼς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη, ‘Ep- 
ραϊπκοῖς γράμμασιν ἔτι σιήζεται. Her. XXX. De Ebione, Kat δέχονται μὲν καὶ 
αὐτοὶ τὸ κατὰ “Πατϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον. . . . καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὸ word” “EBoatous ia os τὰ 
ἀληϑὴ & ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν. ὅτι "Ματϑαῖος μόνος “Εβραϊστὶ κι τι A Ev τῷ γοῦν παρ᾽ αὖ-- 
τοῖς εὐαγγελίῳ, κατὰ ατϑαῖον ὀνομαζομέ vn, οὐχ ὅλῳ δὲ πληρεστάτῳ , which is 
not iideed complete, though very full, ἄλλα γενοϑευμένῳ καὶ ἠκροτηςμασμένῳ, 
HT. A. 

2 ᾿Εγένετό τις ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι ᾿Ἰησοῦς, neh αὐτὸς ὡς ἑτῶν τριάκοντα ἐξελέξατο 
ἡμᾶς. "Kab ἐὐθιὼν εἰς Καιραρνάουμε, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν «Σίμωνος τοῦ ἐπικλη-- 
ϑέντος Πέτρου, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα, αὐτοῦ εἶπε" παρερχόμενος παρὰ τὴν λίμνην 
Τιβηρίαδος. ἐξελεξάμην ᾿Ιωάννην καὶ ᾿Ἰάκωβον, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδ Odi ‘ow, καὶ Σίμωνα, xed 

Avigé av, καὶ Θαδδαῖον, καὶ “Ζίμωνα τὸν Ζηλωτὴν, καὶ ᾿Ιοὐδὰν τὸν ]οκαριώτην, 
zai σὲ τὸν Mardutoy nad: μενον ἐπὶ τοῦ τελωνίου, καὶ ἡκολού ϑησάς wot. 


326 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


their ideas, the basis of their religion. Of one party this must indis- 
putably be true; but are not both accused in history of the same Jew- 
ish fanaticism, and, according to her accusations against them, were 
not both equally capable of taking such a step, and alike prompted to it 
in behalf of their Jewish notions and tenets? Were they not, by the de- 
clarations of Jesus found in the genuine Gospels in regard to the Sab- 
bath and other Jewish customs which they wished to be observed, alike 
compelled to do this, if they desired them to be consistent with their own 
books and agreeable to themselves? And what, moreover, was more 
naturalthan that they should desire to support their writings and tenets 
by the authority of a name, and should ascribe them to Matthew, or even 
to all the Apostles ? 


§ 10. 


Matthew wished to be understood in the country, which, in particular, 
he intended should be acted upon by his Gospel ; hence it is not super- 
fluous, in forming a judgment in regard to his situation as an author, to 
endeavor to get correct ideas of the condition in which he found-the lan- 
guage of that country. According to some, the Greek had then made 
considerable advances by the side of the national language ;' but if we 
should listen to others, we might doubt whether any person in Palestine 
understood Greek ; whether Peter, John, James, Jude, or even Matthew, 
were acquainted with this language, as we might certainly expect a 
man to be who was engaged in collecting customs.” If, however, we 
cast a glance at the changes which occurred in those countries, we shall 
come to a very different conclusion. 

By the conquest of the Macedonians the condition of Asia underwent 
many alterations in opinion, manners, science, and language, the history 
of which will never be fully unfolded for want of documents. What 
I here say respecting the changes in language, has reference particu- 
larly to Palestine. 

‘* What (are the words of an ancient writer) is the meaning of Greek 
cities in barbarous countries, and the Macedonian language among In- 
dians and Persians ?””? Even in Mediathe Macedonians had built Greek 
cities. »On the Tigris, Seleucia was mostly inhabited by Greeks ;° 


1 The writers on this subject have been specified by Kuinoel, in Fabric. Bilioth. 
Grec. Ed. Harles. T. ΓΝ. L. 1V.c.7. p. 760. To these add “Dominici Diodati J. 
C. Neapolitani de Christo Greve loquente.’”’ 8vo. Neapoli, 1767. I could not ob- 
tain this work even in Naples. ‘“ Fr. Guil. Schubert. Dissert. qua in sermonem, 
quo Evangel. Matthei conscriptum fuerit, inquiritur.”’ Gotting. 1810. 

2 Giambernado de Rossi, ‘Della lingua propria di Christo,” &c. Parma. 8vo. 
1772. This work is particularly directed against Diodati. The celebrated au- 
thor sometimes confounds different periods, often uses poor weapons, but isa 
stout combatant. 

3 Seneca, De Consolat. ad Helviam,c. 6. 

4 Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ “Ελληνίδες πόλεις κτίσματα τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐν τῇ Μηδίᾳ. Strabo, 
L.XI. p. 524. 2d ed. Casaubon. : 

5 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. ς; 9. n. 8. Οἰκοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν (Σελεύκειαν) πολλοὶ τῶν 
Ἀϊακεδόνων, καὶ πλεῖστοι Eddnves. Dio Cass. L. XL. p. 128 and 130. ed. 1806. 
“Σελεύκεια πλεῖστον τὸ ᾿Ελληνικὸν καὶ νῦν ἔχουσα. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 997 


and so likewise, to the south-east, the magnificent Ctesiphon,! and to 
the north-west, Sittace.2 Babylon became Macedonian ; in its suburbs 
lived Greeks and Macedonians.? Up the Euphrates from thence lay 
Nicephorium, a Greek city, which was surrounded by other Greek 
cities ;* and further on, in Mesopotamia, was Carrhe, a colony of the 
Macedonians.° But, not to enter into detail, we refer the reader to 
Appian for a long catalogue of cities in further and hither Syria which 
were denominated Greek. Tigranes, the Armenian, in his march 
through Syria to Phoenicia, destroyed no less than twelve Greek cities.” 
Between Syria and Babylonia we meet with the ruins of Palmyra, on 
which are found more Greek than Palmyrene inscriptions. Even some in 
the Palmyrene character are yet in the Greek language.® In hither Syria, 
on the boundaries of Palestine, and in Palestine itself, the Greeks es- 
tablished themselves in greater numbers, as was natural from the situa- 
tion and vicinity of these regions. The many commotions which oc- 
curred here promoted such settlements. The Ptolemies and Seleucide 
had a long contest for the possession of these countries ; both parties 
introduced Greeks, made them magistrates and inhabitants of the cities, 
and stationed them there as garrisons. 

Antioch, the capital of hither Syria, in close connexion with Pales- 
tine, was peopled by its founder with Greeks and Macedonians,!° and 
acquired the fame of Greek refinement and science.'' Macedonians 
and Greeks, as well as Jews, were introduced as inhabitants, not 
only into Antioch, but into several cities of Lower Syria, ἐν τῇ κάτω 
Svoig,!? 


1 Josephus, Ibid. n. 9. Κτησιφῷντα . . . . πόλιν “Ελληνίδα. 

2 Pliny, H.N. L. VI.c. 31. ‘‘ Oppidum ejus Sittace Grecorum : ab ortu 
est.”” It should be thus pointed: “Oppidum ejus Sittace Grecorum: ab ortu 
est Sabbata; ab occasu autem Antiochia.”’ 

7 Elin. Ἢ. Nid Vi. c.30.. “ Babylonia... . libera hodie ac sui juris, 
Macedonumque moris.”” Josephus Antiq. XUI. c. 5. n. 11. καὶ γαρ οὗ ταύτῃ 
κατοικοῦντες Eddnves καὶ Μακεδόνες. x. τ. A. 

4 Dio Cass. L. XL. p. 126. Ed. Wechel. ῳὋὉ Κράσσος τώ τε φρούρια καὶ τὰς 
πόλεις tas “Ελληνίδας μάλίστα, τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὸ Νικηφόριον ὠνομασμένον 
προσεποιήσατο. , 

5 Dio L. XXXVII. p. 31. Καῤῥαῖοι, Μακεδόνων τε ἄποικοι ὄντες. 

6 Appian. De Reb. Syriac. c. LVII. T. I. p. 622, 23. Ed. Schweigh. 

7 Strabo L. XI. near the end. 

8 Rob. Wood, in ‘* The Ruins of Palmyra, otherwise Tadmor in the desert,”’ 
(London, 1753. fol.) cites 26 Greek inscriptions and only 13 Palmyrene. Corn. 
le Brun, also, in “* Voyage au Levant,” (Paris, 1714.) gives the Greek inscrip- 
tions from the original English account, p. 345—66. 

9 Barthelemy, “ Reflexions sur |’ alphabet et sur la langue, dont on se servoit 
autrefois ἃ Palmyre,”’ in the ‘“ Memoires de |’ Academie des Inscript. et Belles 
Lettres.” T. XLV. 8vo. p. 179 seq. 

10 Jos. Antiq. L. XII. c. 3. Bell. Jud. L. VII. ο. 3. n. 3. 

11 Cicero pro Archia poeta, c. 3. Archias was born at Antioch, “ loco nobili, 
celebri quondam urbe et copiosi, atque eruditissimis hominibus, liberalissimisque 
studiis affluenti,”’ &c. 

12 Jos. Ant. L. XII.c.3. Kal γὰρ Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ, ἐν ais ἔκτισε πόλεσιν 
ἐν τῇ Ala καὶ τῇ κάτω Συρίᾳ... . . τοῖς ἐνοικισϑεῖσιν ἰσοτίμους ἀπέδειξε Man— 
εδόσι καὶ Ελλησιν .. .«. τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους. ᾿ 


328 THE HISTORICAL BO2KS 


Even still more ancient cities, such as Tyre and Sidon, which were 
treated differently and were more independent on account of their im- 
portance, yielded to Greek influence and changed their language. 
When the rulers of the Roman empire had established their supremacy 
in these countries, they ordered the edicts which they issued at ‘Tyre to 
be posted in the public places in two languages, the Latin and the 
Greek, so that all could read them'. The case was the same at Sidon ; 
it was necessary that a Roman edict should be published in the Greek 
and Latin languages.” A general order to the cities of Sidon, Tyre 
and Ascalon, contains the same clause: This order is to be put up in 
the temples in Latin and Greek.? In these edicts, as was natural, ref- 
erence was had both to the language of the lawgiver and that of those 
who were to obey. As to Sidon, there is preserved on a marble a decree 
of the city, worded in the Greek language, which was past about 144— 
47 years B. C., in honor of the commander of the body-guard of Ptolemy 
Philometor.* Ascalon is particularly deserving of our notice, as, being 
situated in Palestine, it was at different periods a component part of 
the Jewish state. At this time it produced men distinguished in Greek 
science, as philosophers, historians, and grammarians.° Such was the 
fortune of the principal cities. 

A relic of ancient Berytus attests the same respecting that city. East 
of the present site there still remains the colonnade of a temple which 
was served by Greek priests, who were mendicants; for there were 
such even in Pagan antiquity. The following pretty inscription solic- 
ited the charity of visitors: 779 tov προσιόντος ἀνδρὸς εὔνοιας asi 
σαφῆς ἔλεγχος ἡ πρόσοψις YivEras’ δίδου προϑύμως ὃ παρέχεις, ἢ μὴ 
δίδου παρὰ γὰρ τὸ μικρὸν γίνεται πληρὴς χάρις. It is impossible to 
determine its date with precision, but the form of the =) as it is repre- 
sented, refers it at least to the first century.® 

The heights of Lebanon yet contain ancient structures with Greek 
inscriptions. One of them is dedicated to the Emperor Tiberius: 
AYIOKPATOP! TiBEP/IQl KAATYA/IQ21 KAISZAPI ΣΕ- 
BAZT21 KAl &e.! 


1 Jos. Ant. L. XIV. ο. 12.0.5. “ν᾽ αὐτὸ (διάταγμα) εἰς τὰς δημοσίους évrag— 
ητε δέλτους γράμμασι “Ρωμαϊκοῖς καὶ Ἐλληνικοῖς. ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ ἔχητε αὐτὸ 
γεγραμμένον, omg ὑπὸ πάντων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι δυνήσεται. 

᾿ * 2 Jos. Ant. L. XVI. c. 10. ἡ. 2. | ᾿Βούλομαι δὲ καὶ “Ελληνιστὶ καὶ “Ῥωμαϊστὶ ἐν 
δέλτῳ χαλκῇ τούτο ἀνατεϑῆναι. 

3 Jos. Ant. L. XIV. c. 10. n. ὃ. 


4 “ Voyage du Paul Lucas dans la Greéce, l’Asie mineure, et l'Afrique.” T. 
II. (The 2d Voyage). The decree of the city is at the end of the 2d Vol. “ In- 
scriptions trouvees aSeide, N.5.” Ptolemy Philometor married Cleopatra, 
his sister, banished Demetrius Soter and Alexander from the kingdom of 
Syria, and then assumed the crown of Egypt and Syria. (I. Maccab. XI. 8—13.) 
The inscription I read thus: Ἢ mbhs*Aglay Ζαμοϑέτου, Κρῆτα, τὸν ἀρχι-- 
σωματοφύλακα, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν, καὶ εὔνοιας τῆς εἰς βασιλέα 
Ἡτολέμαϊον καὶ βασίλισσαν Κλεοπάτραν, τὴν ἀδελφὴν, ϑεοὺς Φιλομήτορας, καὶ 
τέκνα αὐτῶν, καὶ τῆς εἰς αὐτὴν ειξεργεσίας. 

5 Stephanus De Urbibus. V. “σκάλων. 

6 Maundrell, 18th March. 


7 Otto Friedr. v. Richter, “ Wallfahrten im Morgenlande,” 1822. p. 103, at 
Kalaat Fakra. ; 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 329 


The Jews did indeed, when they were oppressed beyond endurance 
by Antiochus “piphanes, maintain themselves in the interior of the 
country with arms in their hands, through the valor of their Asmonzan 
leaders, uninfluenced by the language and manners of the Greeks; but 
many cities, which had been torn by the Syrian kings from the Jewish 
state and had meanwhile been peopled by them with other inhabitants, 
they were unable to retake. 

This glory was left for Aristobulus and Alexander, the first of the 
Asmonzans who assumed the royal dignity. At the death of the latter 
they were all, together with several others, subjected to the Jewish sway, 
or, in case the inhabitants would not embrace Judaism, destroyed.! 
This state of things, however, did not continue long. 

When Pompey, returning from his expedition against Mithridates, 
led his legions through Syria, he took advantage of the disputes be- 
tween the Jewish princes, to render Palestine dependent on the Ro- 
mans. On this occasion he took away again from the Jews the cities 
which they had recovered from the Syrian kings, and ordered those 
which had been destroyed to be rebuilt, and the latter as well as the 
former to be restored to their previous inhabitants. Such were Gadara, 
Hippos, Scythopolis, Pella, Dios, Samaria, Marissa, Azotus, Jamnia, 
Arethusa, Gaza, Joppa, Dora, and Strato’s Tower.” Accordingly 
Samaria, Azotus, Scythopolis, Anthedon, Raphia, Dora, Marissa and 
Gaza were speedily rebuilt? Probably they were all inhabited, if not 
wholly, at least in part, by Greeks, or Syrians who spoke Greek. 

Of some of them we can assert this positively. Dora, once a city of 
Galilee, afterwards denied the Jews the right of citizenship. Claudius 
decided the controversy, and adjudged to the Jews an equal right of cit- 
izenship with the Greeks.1 Gadara and Hippos, east of Galilee, be- 
came completely Greek cities;? the former could even boast of men 
of eminence in Greek science.® In the heart of Palestine, between 
Galilee and Judea, and once belonging to the former, was Bethshan, 
called by the Greeks Scythopolis.’. The Greeks who dwelt here, after 
changing the name of the city, referred its origin to Bacchus, in the 
times of Greek mythology,® and termed themselves on their coins Ny- 
sean-Scythopolitans. ‘They have rendered themselves memorable by 


1 Jos. Ant. XIII. c. 15. n. 4. ; “ 
Jos. Ant. X1V.c. 4.n. 4. 

3 Jos. Ant. XIV. c. 5. ἢ. 3. 

4 Jos. Ant. XIX.c.6.n.3. "Ere μέντοι καὶ συμπολιτεύεσϑαι τοῖς Ἐλλησι. 


5 Jos. Ant. XVII. c. 11. π. 4. Γάδαρα καὶ Ἵππος ᾿Ελληνίδες εἰσὶ πόλεις. Comp. 
Bell. Jud. L. Il. ο. 6. πῦϑι 


6 Strabo, L. XVI. p. 759. 2d Casaub. 


7 Βαιϑσών occurs without explanation in the Alexandrine version in Joshua 
17:11; but in Judges 1: 27. Βαιϑσὰν, 7 ἔστι Σκυϑῶν πόλις. The first profane 
author in whom we find Sxvdwy πόλιν, is Polybius. (L. V.c. 70. n. 4.) 


8 The fable is in Pliny and Solinus, Liebe (Gotha Numaria, p. 335, 336.) has 
cited it in illustration of their coins, which are inscribed Νυσαίων τῶν καὶ Sxv- 
ϑοπολίτων. Comp. Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet P. I. Vol. 111. p. 439. 


w 


42 


330 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


their base treachery towards their Jewish fellow-citizens.! On the 
southern border of Judea we meet with Gaza, a city of the Greeks.” 

That Joppa did not continue free from the influence of the Greek 
language, may be inferred from its fortunes. On account of its situa- 
tion and the importance of its harbour, the Alexandrian and Syrian 
kings often took it from the Jews, and kept it in a state of defence by 
means of their garrisons.2 In the days of Strabo‘ the Hellenic fable of 
Andromeda was already transplanted here, in order to procure the impor- 
tance of antiquity for the place, and to carry it back to times when Ju- 
daism did not exist. 

Afterwards Herod succeeded, first through the favor of Antony and 
then of Augustus, in elevating himself tothe throne of the Asmonzans. 
When he saw himself firmly seated upon it, he, and his sons after him, 
built new cities in honor of the Cesars, or embellished the old, and in- 
troduced into them Greek inhabitants. The greatest and most magnif- 
icent was Cesarea, next to Jerusalem the principal city of the country, 
and peopled for the most part by Greeks.° But after the death of the 
king, they were so ungrateful as to refuse the Jews a share in the gov- 
ernment of the city. Nero subsequently declared, against the Jews, 
that the Greeks should be masters of the city.® It fared worse with the 
Greeks at Tiberias; under the same monarch, the Jews fell upon their 
fellow-citizens, the Greeks, and completely overpowered them.’ So 
far accident has favored us with the testimonies of history in respect to 
the cities of the Herods. If the catalogue be not very copious, let it 
be considered that I have quoted but a single authority, viz. Josephus, 
who never mentions the Greeks but when some remarkable occurrence 
requires him to do so. 

Respecting other cities, we can only make inferences from circum- 
stances, or from the evidence of numismatics, Caesarea by Paneas,® built 
by Philip, had temples, theatres, and coins stamped under Augustus, 
Caius Cesar, etc. in the Greek language. Coins of other cities may be 
easily found in Eckhel and Rasche. 

Josephus presents us a long catalogue of cities on which the Jews re- 
venged themselves for the cruel treatment which they had experienced 


1 Bell. Jud. L. Il. c.18.n 5.4. Vita Josephic.6. The Scythopolitans cal- 
led upon the Jews who dwelt with them to fight in defence of tie city against 
- ἢ mutinous countrymen. They took arms and were victorious; but were 
attacked unawares by the Scythopolitans and slaughtered in requital. The latter 
were Greeks, as is stated in a long speech in Bell. Jud. L. VII. c. 8. p. 429. 

2 Jos. Ant. L. XVII. ε. 11. n. 4. Bell. Jud. L. If. c. 6. n. 3. 

3 Diod. Sic. L. XIX. c. 59. and 93. 1 Maceab. 10: 75. 12: 33, 34. 13: 1]. 14: 
34. 2 Maccab. 12: ὃ. Joseph. Ant. L. XIII. c. 9. n. 2. XIV. c. 10. ἡ. 22. 

4 Strabo, L. XVI. p. 759. Also Pliny, Mela, and Solinus. 

5 Bell. Jud. L. II. 6.9. Καισάρειαν μεγίστην τῆς δὲ Ιουδαίας πόλιν, καὶ τὸ 
πλέον vg “Ἑλλήνων ἐνοικουμένην. Comp. L. 11. 6. 13. n. 7. 

6 Bell. Jud. L. Ul. c. 14.0.4. Kad οἱ Καισαρέων Ἕλληνες, νικήσαντες παρὰ 
Νέρωνι τῆς πόλεως ἄρχειν. 

7 Vita Josephi c. 12, where it issaid that the inhabitants slew πάντας tots ἐν-- 
οἰκοῦντας “Ελληνας. 

8 The cavern in which the Jordan risesiscalled Πανεῖον, Pan’s cavern, for it 
was dedicated to Pan and the nymphs, as is shown by the Greek inscriptions on 


eS 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 331 


at the hands of the Greeks in Cesarea.! It is natural to suppose they 
were Greek cities which were to atone for the offences of the Greeks in 
Cesarea. Among them are some which we have just named as Greek 
cities: Gadara, Hippos, Scythopolis, Askalon, Gaza; and hence we see 
clearly what kind of cities are intended. True, in this passage the his- 
torian does not call the inhabitants of Cesarea Greeks, as elsewhere, but 
Syrians; and the cities, Syrian cities. The explanation of this is, that Jo- 
sephus carefully distinguishes, in further Syria,” the Greeks and the Syr- 
ians, while, on the contrary, in Aither Syria, he uses £AAnv and Σύρος 
interchangeably as synonymous terms, as if here no distinction prevailed 
between Greek and Syrian.? 

The cities which he names are the following. Beyond the Jordan 
eastward, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Pella, Gadara, Hippos ; on this side of 
the Jordan, Scythopolis ; Kedasa, on the boundary between the Tyrian 
and Galilean districts; along the sea-coast, Ptolemais, Gaba, Cesarea, 
Askalon, Gaza, Anthedon; in the interior, Sebaste. The first six are 
cities of Decapolis. Here we are assisted by recent discoveries. Phil- 
adelphia is still splendid in its ruins, in the remains of its temples and 
other works of Grecian architecture. Its theatre is the largest in Syria. 
Gerasa surpasses this city, if not in magnificence, yet in the preserva- 
tion of its edifices ; of temples and palaces, mostly of the Corinthian or- 
der, two theatres, nawmachig and baths. All its ruins give evidence 
of Grecian manners, as do also the fragments of inscriptions occurring 
in that language.4 

The case is the same as to the provinces of Auranitis and Trachon- 
itis, which at the time of our Savior were under Jewish rulers, Herod 
and his son Philip. The traveller ofien meets with deserted cities, and 
in most places dilapidated structures of ancient art, Greek inscriptions 
on temples, palaces, gates, water-works, and sepulchres. ‘Those the date 
of which can be determined, belong tothe time of Trajan, or of Hadrian 
and the Antonines. Those of the latter date are most numerous.® 


the rocks without. Seetzen in Zach’s Monathl. Corresp. Octob. 1808. p. 343. 
Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, Journal of a tour from Damascus in the countries 
of the Libanus and Antilibanus, p. 39. 


1 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. 1]. c. 18. 
2 Jos. Antiq. L. XVIII. c. 9. n. 8. and 9. 


3 Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 13. n. 7. Comp. with c. 14. n. 4. Vita Josephi c. 11. Antig. 
L. XVII. c.5.n.7. Histoire de l’Academie des Inscript. et Bell. Lettres, T. II. 
p. 170, 171, in 8vo. 


4 The inscription on a broken column of a public edifice at Gerasa, very in- 
accurately copied in Buckingham’s ‘“ Travels in Palestine,’ Ch. XXI. p. 378, 
I should correct in part, at least, thus: é72. .. . τοῦ μεγαλοπρεπεστάτου . . « 
καὶ ἄρχοντος ἐγένετο τὸ ἔργον τοῦ ἐμβύλου. Another at Suf. distant an hour anda 
half trom Gerasa, | read thus: "Ayadye tiyne. . . . Me’ ἅγιον καὶ ἐϑνίωε ηρωΐ, 
καὶ ἡλίωι, ἁμέραι, ἠοῖ, Anustetov madaviov. . . .” Ayguog ἀπελεύϑερος τὸν βω-- 
μὸν ἀνέϑηκεν κατ᾽ εὐχὴν λυκάβαντι. . .. 

5 Seetzen collected 69 inscriptions, and among them only one in Palmyrene 
characters, the restin Greek. Unfortunately they were all lost. Zach “ Mon- 
ath]. Correspond.”” May 1806. p. 313. Those procured by Burckhardt are well 
known. “Journal of an excursion into the Haouran in 1810.” and “ Journal of 
a tour from Damascus into the Haouran in 1812,” in his ‘‘ Travelsin Syria,” 
Some which escaped Burckhardt may be found in Otto Fried. von Richter's 
“Wallfahrten im Morgenlande,” p. 554—562. 


332 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


These are, indeed, later than the times of the Apostles; but a country 
does not change its language in from twenty to fifty years; and sucha 
prevalence of Hellenism can be accounted for only by supposing that 
the Greeks had been settled here for several generations. 

The names Auranitis and Trachonitis remind us of Abilene, the te- 
trarchate of Lysanias. On an eminence between Damascus and Baal- 
bec, called Nebi-Abel, stands a Doric temple. Withinis a metrical 
inscription in Greek, which declares the fame of the architect, the 
name of the foundress,and the year of the government of Lysanias, 
tetrarch of Abilene, and serves to determine the date of its erection.! 

According to these appearances, the eastern portion of the country 
formerly in the possession of the Israelites was sprinkled over on the 
north with Greek villages and cities, and on the south was mostly occu- 
pied by free cities of a Greek character, surrounded by their territories, 
Philadelphene, Gerasene, Gadaritis, Hippene, which were under Roman 
protection. On the opposite side, a chain of cities extended from Anti- 
och downward, along the Syrian, Pheenician, and Jewish coast, as far as 
the Egyptian frontier, in which Greek, if not the sole, was the pre- 
vailing language. The country between these two sides, comprising 
the districts of Galilee and Judea, in spite of its desire to the contrary, 
was never able to avoid coming in contact with the Greeks and with 
their language; so much the less, as under Herod several cities on 
the coast, Joppa, Askalon, Gaza, Anthedon, and Cesarea always, be- 
longed to the Jewish territory ; and in the interior, besides Scythopolis, 
there arose important cities,as Sebaste, Tiberias, Caesarea by Panias, 
which were inhabited more or less by those who spoke Greek. True, 
the Greeks did not succeed in supplanting the native tongue; but it 
maintained a respectable rank by its side, and, favored by the circumstan- 
ces of the period, gradually extended and established its dominion. 

From the time of Pompey, the opposition to the inroads of the Greeks 
into the interior was suppressed. Not only were the barriers broken 
down, but the Greeks were even the favored party. They became 
still more so under Herod the first, who did not conceal from the Jews 
that he gave the preference to the Greeks.? Nor did he stop with this 
confession, but by costly establishments evinced that it was his purpose 
to Hellenize the Jews. 

He erected at Cesarea a theatre and an amphitheatre ;? at Jericho a 
stadium, amphitheatre and theatre ;* a stadium and amphitheatre under 
the walls of the Holy City, and finally a theatre within its very limits.* 
The enormous appropriations for this species of edifices, particularly 
in the interior of the country, at Jericho, and even at Jerusalem, shows 


1 Pococke, Descript. of the East. Vol II. Chap. 7. § 177. 


a , ὌΝ . υ ’ ” r 
5 “Ἔλλησι πλέον ἢ "Ιουδαίοις οἰκείως ἔχειν ὁμολογούμενος. Jos. Ant. XIX.c. 7. 
n.3 


3 Jos. Ant. XV. c. 9. p. 773. Comp. XVI. c. 5. 


4 Bell. Jud. L. I.c. 33. n. 6.8. p. 141.2. Antiq XVII. c.6.n. 5. L. XVII. c. 
6.u. 3. p. 844. 


5 Bell. Jud. L. 11. ς. 8, π.1. Antiq. XV. c. 8. ». 766. Θέατρον ἐν “Ιεροσολύ-- 
μοὶς ὠκοδόμησε. Comp. Eichhorn, De Judworum re scenic. Comment. Soc. 
R. Scient. Gotting. Recentior. Vol. 11. Class. Antiq. p. 10—13. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 333 


kow determined he was to accustom the Jews to the Greek drama and 
to the sanguinary diversions of the Romans. ἷ 

It is worthy of inquiry, to what degree the subsequent Roman govern- 
ment, administered by the procurators and pretors of Syria, (the for- 
mer under the control of the latter,) contributed to, or retarded the 
adoption of the Greek language. This inquiry may be proposed as fol- 
lows: What language did the pretors of Syria and the governors of Ju- 
dea, Vitellius, Petronius, Pilate, use when sitting in judgment or ad- 
dressing the assembled people? 

Formerly it had been customary for the Roman governors to speak 
only their own language ; and this even where it was not understood, as 
in Greece and Asia. Inthe reign of ‘Tiberius, however, the ancient 
custom was so far laid aside, that, as a contemporary declares, the 
place in which the senate assembled at Rome resounded even to deafen- 
ing with Greek debates! Where formerly the ambassadors of the 
Greeks were heard only through the medium of an interpreter, and their 
requests answered in the same way,” a Roman emperor now harangued 


them at length in the Greek Janguage.® 


When they sat in judgment, they frequently dispensed Roman law in 
Greek words. Tiberius having made an exception in this matter, and 
refused to receive the testimony of a centurion in the Greek language, 
the historian observes that the emperor was not consistent in this; for 
in the same court he had conducted many examinations and had pro- 
nounced many decisions, in this language. The judgments of Claudi- 
us were often interspersed with verses of Homer,’ and he was frequently 
annoyed by the impudence of the Greeks.» When Nero first engaged 
in public affairs, he spoke in behalf of the Bononians, and in behalf of 
the Rhodians and Ilienses, before the Consul; for the first in Latin, and 
for the others in Greek.® 

If the emperors themselves in Rome administered justice to the in- 
habitants of the provinces in the Greek language, and the affairs of the 
Greeks, which were brought forward by their ambassadors, were discussed 
in Greek in the senate and before the Consuls, we may easily infer what 
was the procedure of the Romans in Greece and Asia. 


2 Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. L. VII. c. 14. 


3 Sueton. Claudius, c. 42. He made a single exception in respect to ambas- 
sadors who were of Roman extraction and had settled in the provinces. To 
then he spoke in Latin and required a reply in Latin. Dio Cass. L. LX. p. 676. 
ed. Wechel. 1606. Sueton. Claud. c. 16. 

4 Dio Cass. L. LVII. p. 612. Wechel. and Rob. Steph. p. 419. Suetonius 
limits it only thus much: Sermone Greco... .non tamen usquequaque usus 
est. Abstinuit maxime in senatu.’”’ Tiber. c. 71. Whenever he made use of 
the Latin language he took pains to speak and write it with purity. Dio L. LVI. 


p. 613. Wech. and Rob. Steph. p. 420. Comp. Sueton. De illustr. grammat. c. 
22 


5 Sueton. Claud. c. 42. 
6 Sueton. Claud. c. 15. 


7 Sueton. Nero. c. 7. Comp. Seneca, Controy. L. IV. p. 291. Bipont. 
8 Cicero, in Verrem L. IV. e. 66. 


334 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Yet it is not probable that he would have done any thing in his capacity 
of ambassador which he could not justify by other facts. P. Crassus, 
who, as proconsul, was commissioned to make war against Aristonicus 
in Asia, went so far as to make replies and issue commands to each of 
the Grecian tribes in its own dialect, according as he was addressed ; 
to the Ionians in Ionic, to the Aolians in Molic.! Augustus, as con- 
queror and sovereign, addressed the people of Alexandria in Greek.” 
By Greek eloquence Mucianus induced the people of Antioch to de- 
clare for Vespasian.? The Greek even seems to have been the court 
language of the proconsuls in Asia and Syria.4 

Once more then: What language was used by the procurators of 
Palestine, Pilate, Porcius Festus, when they sat in judgment? and by 
the pretors of Syria, Petronius, Vitellius, when, as often happened, they 
addressed the people?) That the Romans in Syria and Phenicia made 
use of the Greek language, we know from the preceding evidence; and 
that an interpreter was employed by them in Palestine, we find no evi- 
dence either in Josephus or the sacred books. 

As respects the people, the higher classes could hardly do without this 
language on account of the change in the circumstances of society ; 
but with the multitude, the knowledge of it depended on accident, the 
sphere of life in which each was placed, and hisemployment. “Few of 
my countrymen,” says Josephus, at the end of his Archeology, “ could 
have composed this work in the Greek language, for want of a gram- 
matical acquaintance with it; in which I can boast myself superior to 
others, although, from the established customs of my country, I myself 
do not speak it well. For among us the knowledge of foreign langua- 
ges, and nicety and elegance in pronouncing them, are considered vulgar, 
inasmuch as freemen of low condition and even menials may, if they 
please, acquire them. We consider those only learned who are skilled 
in our law and can expound the sacred books.” 

A knowledge of the ancient language and the religious documents, 
was therefore the object of the higher Jewish education. There were 
even no places of instruction for the existing popular dialect, the Ara- 
mean. The Greek was neglected inthe same manner. The Jews un- 
derstood it, but not grammatically. They learned it by conversation. 
and intercourse; and in this way it was acquired by the lower orders, 
who were not in a situation to receive instruction, had it been provided. 

The religious authorities were so far from being any longer opposed 
to the diffusion of the Greek language, that they esteemed and reverenced 
it above every other language. Writings composed in it were reckoned 
among the works of Jewish learning; and its use was allowed even in 
judicial cases in which religion was concerned. So we are informed by 
the oldest and most to be relied on of the Talmudic records, viz. the 
Mishna; for I am not inclined to regard all the dreams of the later 


Jews. 
‘“The Jews are not permitted to compose books in all languages ; 


1 Valer. Max. L. VII. c. 7. n. 6. 
2 Dio. Cass. L. LI. p..454. Wech. and R. Steph. p. 307. 
3 Tacit. Hist. L. IT. c. 80. 
4 Seneca, Ep. XII. De ira, L. II. c. 5. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 335 


they shall only be allowed to write them in the Girecl: language.” 'This 
is a declaration of Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, which was re- 
garded as a statute.! 

A bill of divorce might be either in Greek or Hebrew (if desired, in 
both languages), and signed by the witnesses in Greek or Hebrew. It 
was equally valid, whichsoever language was used.” Yet in this matter 
the Jews were extremely scrupulous, and allowed absolutely no inter- 
ference in it on the part of any court not Jewish. They likewise 
would not regard any witness as competent in such a case, unless he 
were of their own nation.? So indulgent had they become in a legal 
matter pertaining to religious or Mosaic casuistry. 

The earliest prohibition of the Greek occurred in the later days of 
the Jewish state, when Titus distressed Jerusalem. In the war of Ves- 
pasian the bridegroom’s wreath and the cymbals were abolished by a pub- 
lic edict ; and in the war of Titus the use of the bride’s wreath was pro- 
hibited, and fatherswwere forbidden henceforth to permit their sons to 
learn Greek.4 

From this prohibition we might explain, were it necessary, why Jo- 
sephus, when deputed by Titus to persuade the besieged to less despe- 
rate measures, addressed them in their native language, τῇ πατρίῳ 
γλώσσῃ and ᾿διβραΐζων. (Bell. Jud. L. V. c. 9. n.2. L. VI. ὁ. 9. n. 1.) 
But even had there been no such prohibition, there was in the old an- 
cestral sounds an evidence of like extraction and like interest in the 
fate of the country, and hence an inducement to confidence. So Titus 
thought ;° and how then can it be considered as proof of ignorance of 
the Greek on the part of the besieged ? 

I must mention another circumstance. When the revolters, in the 
last decisive moments, became apparently somewhat more submissive, 
they requested a conference with Titus. He had never yet appeared 
in person in any negotiation. He approached, ordered a cessation of 
hostilities on the part of the Romans, had an interpreter at his side, (ὅπερ 
ἣν τεχμήριον τοῦ κρατεῖν, as Josephus adds,) and himself commenced 
the conference.® Here he spoke through an interpreter. Was this in- 


1 Mischn. Tract. Megill.c.1.n.8. pempoa ἘΝ sw bysbea 4a yee jan 
:mrap Sox ans w aasemA Nd = According to R. B. Maimon and Obadiah of 
Bartenora, the ;7=$m or observance was in conformity with R. Simeon’s decision. 
Comp. c. II. n. 1, where the two Rabbins assert it to be indifferent whether the 
Megillah be read in Chaldee or Greek. Thus the objection of a learned man is 
removed, who maintains that it would be contrary to established custom for a 
Jew of Palestine (Matthew) to have wirtten a book in the Greek language. (Ber- 
thold, Hist. Einleit. in die Schriften des A. und N. T. III. Th. § 320. p. 1176.) 
The passage to which he refers (Joseph. Antiq. Prem. n. 2.) relates only to the 
difficulty he found in expressing himself accurately according to the idiom of 
a foreign language ; for Josephus wished not merely to write Greek, but to write 
it elegantly. (Ant. L. XVI. at the beginning.) 

2 Mischn. Tr. Gitin.c.9. 0.8. eazy maa ma as manay ΓΞ ws 
@9WI 791 ABI ANS 3 IAN WA say AMS Ty may. Compare with this 
the preceding sections in the same chapter of Tr. Gitin. 

3 Gitin. ec. 1. n. 5. 

4 Misch. in Sotah. ο. 9. π, 14. xdw. mid> miqvy dy Ἴπ1ὸ Ὁ by Owebea 
tm a Ms Ow wad". 

5 Τάχα ἐνδοῦναι πρὸς ὁμόφυλον δοκῶν αὐτούς. Bell. Jud. L. V.c. 9. ἡ. 2. 

6 Bell. Jud. L. 6. c. 6. 


336 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


terpreter, then, employed to translate the words of Titus into Hebrew ? 
For that office he would no doubt have preferred Josephus himself: 
But it was not he: if it had been he would have mentioned it, for he 
never forgets himself in his history. Neither was the interpreter pres- 
ent to address the Jews in Hebrew, πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ; for Josephus 
would have mentioned it. For what purpose, then, it will be asked, 
was the interpreter needed? ‘The words of the historian, rightly un- 
derstood, afford an explanation. The emperor spoke ex majestate im- 
perii, i.e. in Latin, according to the old Roman custom. Thus much 
is conveyed ‘by the words: ὅπερ ἦν τεκμήριον τοῦ χρατεῖν, this was 
the distinguishing mark of sovereignty, which have been falsely refer- 
red to the next clause: primus, quod victoris indicium, dicere institutt. 
It would have been better if Ruffin’stranslation had been retained, who 
comes,at least, nearer the mark : “ adhibitoque interprete, quo argumen- 
to superior ostendebatur. Now the interpreter translated his words into 
amore intelligible language, but, as we have inferred from the usual 
custom of Josephus, not into the Hebrew. What language, then, could 
it have been? Moreover, (in confirmation,) Titus is praised for having 
made use of the Latin language in state affairs, and the Greek in his 
literary recreations.! 

We now return to our subject. It can no longer be doubted that, at 
the time when Matthew wrote, the Greek language held firm footing 
in Palestine. But it is not yet perfectly clear from all these facts uni- 
ted, what was the mutual relation of the two languages. An occur- 
rence in Paul’s life promises us some light on this point. At Jerusa- 
lem, in an uproar which arose in the temple against him, he was with 
difficulty carried away to a place of safety by the guard. He demands 
leave to speak to the assembled people ; ascends the stairs and addres- 
ses them in the Hebrew tongue. (Acts 21: 40.) This pleased them; 
and we see in the fact their predilection for the language of the coun- 
try. he gratification, however, proves at the same time that the peo- 
ple might have been addressed in another language. The narrative of 
the historian even shows that the assembled multitude expected a speech 
in another language. “‘ And he beckoned with the hand unto the peo- 
ple. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them 
in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye my. 
defence which I make now unto you. And when they heard that he 
spake in the EHlebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence,” 
μᾶλλον παρέσχον ἡσυχίαν. (Acts 91: 40—22: 2.) ΤῈ is plain from the 
narrative that they expected an address in another language, and, to 
their gratification, heard a defence in Hebrew. Now what language 

'were they expecting? The accusation against Paul, and the immedi- 
ate cause of the uproar, was that he had introduced Greeks into the 
temple. (Acts 21:28.) His accusers were Greek Jews from Ionia, 
who had a short time before seen Trophimus, the Ephesian, with him. 
(Acts 21: 27—30.) The accusation and the accusers must have led 
the people to expect only an address in Greek. The case is the more 
in point as it does not relate to individuals, but to the people who were 


1 ᾿ , ~ λ ᾿ > , ’ \ " οὐ να 
Suidas. V. Τύτος-- τῇ μὲν darivoy ἐπιχωρίῳ γλώττῃ πρὸς τὰς τῶν κοινῶν 
ss ~ ’ x ΝΜ « y “- ~ 

ἐχρῆτο διοικήσεις, ποιήματα δὲ καὶ τραγῳδίας ᾿Ελλάδι φωνῇ διεπονεῖτο. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 337 


his auditors, and the whole city which was in commotion. To judge 
from this occurrence, the language of the country had the predilection 
of the people in its favor; the mass, however, though there may have 
been thousands and thousands of exceptions, understood Greek like- 
wise, more from circumstances than from an inclination to foreign lan- 
guages and manners. But it was ona feast-day; a great number of 
foreigners were present. ‘l'rue; and yet the greater number were na- 
tives who would have understood Greek, but were glad to hear the He- 
brew instead of it. 

It may now appear less surprising that even. in the capital, the cen- 
tral point of Judaism, there were peculiar synagogues, in which the 
Greeks of various countries convened in separate congregations of con- 
siderable magnitude; e. g. the Alexandrians, Cyrenians, Asiatics, &c. 
(Acts 6: 9. 9: 29.) 

The Christian sect, too, of this city consisted partly of persons who 
spoke Greek, or Hellenists, who were sufficiently numerous to maintain 
a dispute with the Jews. (Acts 6: 1 seq.) 

We are here drawn into a controversy, which for the sake of complete- 
ness we must not avoid. Some have been desirous of getting rid of 
these Jews who spoke Greek, and Jewish Christians, who are mentioned 
in the Acts. In order to get rid of them, we have been referred to an 
explanation which had been long ago abandoned, and is to the follow- 
ing purport: “ Hellenists were only proselytes, who were always some- 
what despised by the Jews who belonged to the twelve tribes, or Hebrews 
in the strict sense of the word, and were denominated Hellenists, in refer- 
ence to their heathen extraction.”! 

At any rate, however, they spoke Greek; the rather as they were of 
heathen extraction, or but lately heathen themselves. Who could ex- 
pect any thing else from natives of Cilicia, and particularly of Cyrene, 
Alexandria, and Ionia? (Acts 6:9.) The example of Philo may be 
adduced to prove that the Alexandrians understood also something of 
Hebrew: but this must have been trifling ; and besides, there were very 
few so learned as he was. 

Let us enter into a little analysis. What was aJew? What a He- 
brew? What wasa Hellene? and what a Hellenist?—The name of 
Jew (we speak of the times of our Lord and the Apostles,) was the 
common expression for all who derived their origin from the ancient 
kingdom of Judah, in whatever part of the world they might dwell; 
(φύσει Jovduior, Gal. 2: 15. πάντες κατὰ τὴν oixoupernr, Acts. 24: 
5,) and the religion of this race of men (yévog) is called Judaism 
(/ovdaiouos) Galat. 1: 14. Hence the Jews stand opposed to the hea- 
then (ἔϑνη) Rom. 3:29. 9: 24, &c. &c., or to the principal heathen na- 
tion, the Greeks (“LAAnveg,) Acts 18: 4. Rom. 2: 9. 10: 12. 1 Cor. 1: 
24. To be addicted to Judaism is /ovdaitecy ; a pagan mode of life, 
however, is ἐϑνεκῶς ζῆν (Gal. 2: 14,) and never ‘HAAnvifecv. He who 
had been converted from heathenism, but not so long since as to be con- 


1 Dr. Pfannkuche, On the Language of Palestine in the time of Christ and the 
Apostles, according to De Rossi. In Eichhorn’s Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Lit- 
teratur, Vol. VIII. Part. 3. p. 472. ᾿ 


43 


338 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


sidered a citizen, was a proselyte, or son of a proselyte. (Acts. 6: 5. 18: 
43.) In Acts 2: 10, the terms ’/ovdaios and προσήλυτον comprise all 
the adherents of Judaism. “ 

Now in Acts 6: i the Hebrews and Hellenists stand opposed to each 
other inthe same way asthe Jews and Hellenes. What can it have 
been which distinguished the Hebrew, and by virtue of which he con- 
stituted a subdivision of the generalterm Jew? Certainly not religion; 
in that he was a Jew: not his extraction; in that also he was a Jew. 
What, then, can it have been but language? When customs, opinions, 
and religious worship are spoken of, /ovdatizog only is used; but when- 
ever the national language, alphabet and literature are mentioned; ‘£@- 
ouizog is used; as “βραϊκὴ διάλεκτος, Acts 22: 2. 26: 14. ᾿Αβραϊκὰ 
γράμματα, Luke 23:88; and persons speak and write £gaior/, John 
19: 17, 20.1 But we never find ‘/ovdaixy διάλεκτος, “Jovdaiza γράμ- 
ματα, etc. It is thus pretty clear in what the Hebrew was distinguish- 
ed from the mass of his nation. 

If then the peculiarity by which the Hebrew distinguished himself 
consisted in language, it may be inferred what was the peculiar charac- 
teristic of the Hellenist, who is opposed to him; that likewise must 
have related tolanguage. Hence Διβραΐζξειεν and LAdAnvileey were op- 
posed to each other. The word ‘EPoatfeev signifies in Josephus, to ex- 
press any thing in Hebrew: ta τοῦ Καίσαρος διήγγειλε LGoailwr. 
(Bell. Jud. L. VI. c.3.n.1.) What then must “ZiAnvifecv have been? 
What it always was, to speak Greek ; as, e. g. Thucydides says, (II. 
45.) “Πλληνίσϑησαν τὴν νῦν γλῶσσαν, they adopted the Greek language 
which they now speak ; and Xenophon, (Anab., VII. c. 3. n. 12.) “Δλλη- 
vitewy yao ἠπίστατο ; or as Lucian, (Philopseud. ο. 16,) says of the 
demon which the native of Palestine expels, ἀποχρένεται ᾿Βλληνίζων ἢ 
βαρβαρίζων that he replied in both languages of Palestine, in the lan- 
guage of the country, βαρβαρίξζων, and in the Greek, “LAAnviCwv. 
Hence a Hellenist was very well defined by the Scholiast to be a Jew 
by extraction who speaks Greck ;? and if John Chrysostom derived this 
meaning, as I suppose he did, from the mere formation of the word, he 
was too good a Grecian for us on this account to dispute his assertion.® 
If we consult one of the old Greek grammarians, we obtain from him the 
following information : from” ZiAnjvcomes HiAAnvico, then LiAnveori; as 
from Ζωρίζω, ΖΦωριστὶ, AioriCw, Aiohioti. This plainly refers to lan- 
guage and dialect.*| Thus Hellenists were distinguished by their ]an- 
guage, in respect to which they stood opposed to Jews speaking He- 
brew or Aramzan. They were men who spoke Greek. 

Too great an importance is attached, notwithstanding, (particularly 


‘by Bertholdt) to the fact that Jesus is represented as speaking Hebrew. 


(Mark 5: 41, ταλεϑὰ κοῦμε; 7: 34, éggada; and Matth.27: 46, Mark 


1 Joseph. de Maccab. ὃ 14. The mother exhorts her sons “Efgatx7 φωνῇ and 
τῇ Ἕβραϊδι διαλέκτῳ. 
2 Schol. in Act. Ap. VI. 1. Edit. N. T. Frid. Matthei. “Ελληνιστῶν---τῶν “Ελ- 


“ληνιστὶ φϑεγγομένων, καίτοι ᾿Εβραίων ὄντων τῷ γένει. 


3 J. Chrys. Comment. in Act. VI. 1—9. “Ελληνιστὰς δὲ οἶμαι καλεῖν τοὺς “Ελ- 
ληνιστὲ φϑεγγομένους, οὗτοι γὰρ “Ελληνιστὶ διελέγοντο “Εβραῖοι ovres. Ἷ 
4 Apollon. Alexandrin. in Imman. Bekkori Anecd. Gree. Vol. II. p. 572. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 339 


15:34.) It might be replied that the Hebrew words in these passages 
are quoted by the Evangelists as something remarkable, which would 
not have been the case had Jesus usually spoken Hebrew ; and what 
could reasonably be objected to this answer? But we will not dismiss 
the matter so hastily. Our Lord may have addressed the Jewish mul- 
titude in Hebrew, on account of their predilection for it. But how did 
he address a mixed assembly collected from different countries and 
cities? How did he address proselytes and pagans; 6. g. at Gadaris ? 
(Matth. 8: 28 564. Mark 5: 1. Luke 8: 26.) What language did he 
speak in the region of ‘T'yre and Sidon (Mark 7: 24 seq. ), where the 
Syrophenician Greek woman (γυνὴ “Edanvis «Συροφοινίκεσσα,) entered 
into conversation with him? and what in Decapolis, which consisted of 
Greek cities, such as Philadelphia, Gerasa, Gadara, Hippos, and Pel- 
la? 

Finally, even if Jesus did frequently speak eo how can that 
affect Matthew, who was not obliged to address distinct collections of 
people constantly changing, sometimes Hebrews, sometimes Hellenists, 
and hence allowed to vary his language accordingly ; but must have 
had in mind a fixed.class of men, and have adapted his language to that 
class, in which were included not only the present but a future race, to 
whom perhaps the Hebrew might become less familiar ? 

Let us now recapitulate the observations we have made. 


I. Through the supremacy of the Macedonians, Asia was filled far | 


and wide with Greek cities. In hither Asia many were founded by the 


dynasty of the Ptolemies, and especially by that of the Seleucide. Older | 


cities, such as Tyre and Sidon, under the same influence changed their 
language. 

11. The Syrian, Phenician and Iewich coast throughout, to the bor- 
ders of Egypt, was occupied by cities either entirely or half Greek. 
The Israelitish east, from the Arnon upwards, Gilead, Bashan, Hauran, 
Trachonitis including Abilene, was entirely Greek towards the north, 
and towards the south mostly in possession of the Greeks. In Judea 
and Galilee there were several cities baa at least in a great mea- 
sure, inhabited by Greeks. 

III. Herod the great expended enormous sums to transform his Jews 
into Greeks. 

IV. The Roman supremacy rather promoted than impeded this pro- 
gress to Hellenism. 

V. Even the religious authorities of the Jews were so far from mak- 
ing any opposition, that they paid respect to the Greek language till the 
latest period of the state, and acknowledged it as proper to be employed 
in their literary works, and even admissible in judicial transactions. 

VI. Thus favored on every side, this language spread itself by means 
of intercourse and conversation throngh all classes, so that the people 
in general, though with many exceptions, understood it, being howev- 
er more attached to their own language. 

VII. In the Holy City itself ‘there were congregations exclusively 
composed of Jews who spoke Greek. From these and from Greek 
proselytes the Christian sect in Jerusalem was partly supplied with ad- 
herents. 

I. Let us imagine Matthew placed in these circumstances. If he 


340 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


wrote in Greek, the mass of the people understood him, and he was com- 
pensated for that part of the people who perhaps spoke only the lan- 
guage of the country, by the cities on the borders or in the interior 
which from early times or through the favor of the Herods were in- 
habited either entirely or partially by Greeks; as likewise by the Hel- 
lenistic congregations in the Holy City and the Hellenists among the 
Christians, with whom he could communicate in no other way. If he 
wrote in Hebrew, he resigned the greater and perhaps the nobler part 
of the readers we have just mentioned. 

2. If he took into consideration Auranitis, Trachonitis, or the other 
eastern districts, once the inheritance of the Israelites, now chiefly be- 
longing to the cities of Decapolis, he found weighty reason for a pref- 
erence of the Greek. 

3. If his view likewise comprehended the adjacent regions of the 
west ; if he considered Antioch the capital of Syria, where the believers 
were first called Christians (Acts 11: 26); or neighboring Syrian 
churches (Acts 15: 23, 41); if he thought of Tyre, where there were 
already Christians (Acts 21: 3,4); of Sidon (Acts 28:3); and other 
cities along the Phcenician coast (for they all fall within the sphere of 
operation which he assigned himself in the composition of his book, 
§ 2; they all had an evident acquaintance with Palestine and its inhab- 
itants) ; he could no longer be undecided to which Janguage he should 
give the preference; he could not but select the Greek. 

4. If, writing his book at that late period of the national existence, 
his mind was wholly engrossed by the prophecies of his Master, which 
led him to expect a speedy dissolution of the Jewish state, (of the pre- 
lude to which he was already himself an eyewitness,) and if he desired 
to have an influence even after that dissolution was completed ; if he 
wished to be understood still, when the remnant of the Jews, wander- 
ing and homeless in their own country, without a temple or religious 
worship, should have surrendered their possessions to others ; if he in- 
tended to write not merely for a few months or years; then he would 
by no means have written the language of a nation which in a short 
time would cease to be a nation. 


§ 11. 


Such having been the condition of the national language of Palestine, 
it cannot be doubted, that besides the Nazarenes and the few natives of 
the country who passionately clung to the usages and language of their 
nation, a multitude of other Jewish adherents to Christianity, scattered 
in various parts of Palestine, must have read and understood any He- 
brew original of Matthew, if there were such an one, and would hardly 
have exchanged it for a Greek version. On this account copies of the 
text must have multiplied, and must have spread into various parts of 
the country ; and these copies could not have been so completely destroy- 
ed that not a trace should remain of them, except, as is pretended, 
ainong the sect of the Nazarenes or Ebionites. 

In Syria, likewise, particularly in the northeast part of it, where the 
Syriac dialect obstinately maintained itself, and where even in the 2d 
century sprang up a Syriac literature and school of poetry, a book of 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 341 


this kind, written in the Galilean dialect, could not but be acceptable 
for use in private by individuals, as well as in public religious ser- 
vice. It would have been no objection that it was in Hebrew char- 
acters, for, judging from the Palmyrene inscriptions, these were the 
common characters in a large part of Syria, and where they were not 
so, a change of the letters would do away all difficulty. Christians in 
this country could never have lost sight of it, as their only religious book 
until they obtained aversion of the whole New .Testament; and yet, 
when this version was prepared, they were so little aware of such an orig- 
inal Gospel, that instead of preserving that as a venerable original 
document, or altering it so as to adapt it more perfectly to their eins 
they translated anew our Geel: text, itself a translation. 

Origen} too, found no trace of such a book; he could discover no- 
thing but the book καϑ' ‘EBoatous, the value of which he left to every 
one’s own decision; and yet the discovery of Matthew in its original 
language was as important to him as his perseverance in such investiga- 
tions was untiring. He not only devoted time and labor to the Old 
Testament, in order to restore the purity of the Septuagint by reference 
to the original text and other critical helps, but was employed, likewise, 
in a Recension of the New Testament. ‘The many errors that had 
crept into the book of Matthew, of which he expressly complains, could 
be remedied in no surer way than by recurrence, as in respect to the 
Old Testament, to the original text. He performed, during twenty-eight 
years, numerous journeys for critical purposes, and drew forth many 
unused and forgotten Mss. from obscurity, in which, but for him, they 
would probably have perished, for the sake of leaving nothing unat- 
tempted for the meliorationof the biblical text. He travelled over Pal- 
estine and Syria, and lived at Tyre while making use of the critical ap- 
paratus he had collected. Notwithstanding these laborious research- 
es made by this intelligent man for this express purpose, he nowhere 
discovered any such original of Matthew. 

Pamphilus, a Phoenician of Barut, celebrated as a martyr, as the in- 
structor of Eusebius, and on account of his biblical scholarship, found- 
ed for the church at Cesarea a library of note among the ancients, and 
diligently searchedeverywhere to procure books for it. The treasure of 
biblical literature which it presented attracted Jerome thither, and he 
derived great advantage from it. But even for this collection, no He- 
brew copy of Matthew had been obtained by Pamphilus; he could pro- 
cure only the Nazarene book, and it was this which Jerome, who trans- 
lated it, here saw.! So entirely fruitless were the endeavors of the an- 
cients to get a sight of the pretended original text of this Evangelist, 
that its existence seems to have been mere report, without the slightest 
foundation in reality. 

On the other hand, nothing was known of a translation of Matthew 
into Greek. Let us examine Papias once more, who pretends, as we 
have seen, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and then subjoins : oun 
vevos δὲ αὐτὰ (Mardalov λόγια) ae houvtcte éxaorog—each one 
translated the book as well as he could. _(Buseb. H. E. L. TI. at the 


ΤῊ» ronym. de e Script. Eccles. V. Pamphil. and V. Matth. ; as : as algo L, Ill. Adv. 
Pelag. “ In Evangelio juxta Hebreos . . quo utuntar usque hodie Naza- 
_reni... . quod in Cwsareensgi biliotheca habetar,” &c. 


» 


342 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


end.) That is to say, such Christians as did not understand Hebrew 
translated the book, every man according to his ability ; or, more briefly 
still, whoever did not understand it, translated it, Or did he imagine 
that all Christians learned something of Hebrew in order to be able to 
understand Matthew? No writer, unless he were entangled in error, 
could be betrayed into such difficulties. So much, however, is clear 
from this, that Papias and all those from whom he derived his collection 
of ancient traditions, did not know when, where, by whom, or on 
what authority, a Greek version of Matthew had been executed ; and 
this in the earliest part of the second century, when it could not have 
been long translated, as Matthew wrote his Gospel at most only sixty 
years before ‘Papias, and the pretended version must have been consid- 
erably later, since he asserts that Christians dispensed with a version 
for some time. 

Let us now compare these facts. Pamphilus and Origen, one of 
whom lived in Palestine, the other in Pheenicia, were not able to procure 
the genuine Hebrew Matthew. ‘The Syrians, in whose dialect, by the 
way, it was written, and who certainly would have obtained it at their 
conversion, did not know of its existence about the close of the second 
century. Now where could it have existed if not in Palestine, Pheni- 
cia, or Syria? On the other hand, at the commencement of the 2d 
century, nobody had any knowledge of a translation of Matthew in- 
into Greek, for the use of those who were not Jews; exactly as though 
from the beginning nobody had heard of any other Matthew than a 
Greek one. or righ Fi as 

ὃ. .-. ἐσ 


§ 12. 


The Gospel of Matthew which isin our possession, and the substance 
of which belongs to him as its author, according to the testimony of 
the most various and distinct religious sects of the earliest times of Chris- 
tianity,as we have shown in our general introduction,—this Gospel 
was originally written in Greek. For the Greek dress of the passages 
which are cited from the Old Testament is so managed, that their ap- 
pearance must be ascribed to the authors, and not to any translator. 
They generally exhibit his peculiar purposes, and have reference to the 
practical scope of his history, which he was desirous of making evident 
as the narrative proceeded. 

In general, the Alexandrian version is used and literally followed in 
these quotations. The author of the Greek text of Matthew, however, 
had at his command the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and freely 
consulted it. 

He sometimes deserted the Septuagint and gave his citations a pecu- 
liar and happy turn in reference to the purpose of his book, even when 
no necessity required it, but merely for the sake of making an expres- 
sion more strictly appropriate. For instance: there was nothing to pre- 
vent his making use of Isaiah 42: 1 seq. as it stood in the Septuagint ; 
but the words: οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ἔξω, which, it was 
true, were the literal rendering of 151) pina yw n=ND4, did not, seem 
to him who determined the Greek Εν sufficiently definite and 
appropriate to delineate the character of an unassuming sage, as mani- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 343 


fested in Jesus. The purport of the passage was therefore made more 
suitable to the idea of the Evangelist, by a peculiar phraseology : He 
shall not strive nor ery, neither shall any man hear his voice in the 
streets, οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει, οὐδὲ ἀκούσει τις ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις 
τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ. In these words were clearly portrayed the quiet, 
noiseless character, and unassuming modesty of Jesus. (Matt. 12: 19.) 

In citing Psalm 78:2, he might have used the words φϑέγξομαι προ-- 
βλήματα an’ ἀνχῆς; but they were not sufficiently significant of the 
kind of discourse which established the Messianic authority of Jesus, 
for proof of which, principally, Matthew cited the Old Testament. For 
with the Jews the plan of the Messiah’s advent to bless them was a 
deep mystery of the Godhead from eternity, προέγνωσμένα ἀπὸ κατα- 
βολῆς κόσμου, (1 Pet. 1: 20. Ephes. 1: 4. Heb. 9:26.) To express 
this, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς was too tame, and a more lively idea was contained in 
the word “X7=N ; he therefore gave more force and consequence to the 
passage by using the best expression: ἐρεύξομιαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ 
καταβολῆς κόσμου. (Matt. 13: 35.) 

The translation of the words ἘΠ and 28372, in Isaiah 53: 4, by 
ἀσϑενεία and νόσος, (Matt.8: 17,) was so perfectly adapted to the wri- 
ter’s purpose, that the Hebrew expression was far transcended with the 
view of promoting the aim of the Evangelist. ᾿ 

The words in Matt. 27: 9, 10,came beyond a doubt from Zechariah ; 
but they were quoted from memory, and are ascribed to Jeremiah. It 
is as improbable that Matthew, in order to show that Jesus was the 
Messiah, for which purpose proof of real validity was requisite, should 
have appealed to apocryphal writings, which might be objected to and 
could not confer on his attempt any convincing authority, as it is erro- 
neous and contrary to all investigations concerning the canon to im- 
agine that any part of the Old Testament has been lost since Matthew’s 
time. 

The passage is found in Zechariah, and in the same words; the ar- 
rangement only is different, as would be very natural in a quotation from 
memory. Zech, 11: 13, 14. ,O3 nde SNPN1, xal ἔλαβον ta τρια-- 
κοντα aoyvola—here we have, in the first place, the same clause and 
the same sum expressed. So too as to the words τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ 
τετιμημένου, ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο, ὈΣΙΞΣ MAP? We ΡΥ; for the 
word 0792372 is substituted ano τῶν υἱῶν /oga7A, because SY" 103 
(for which he read 72) occurs afterwards. Even the potter is mention- 
ed in the Hebrew: καὶ ἔδωκαν εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, IND 
738 T¥i=n->N. In common usage 724 is a potter, the literal 
Aquila having translated it πλάστης. Lastly, the field too is men- 
tioned ; for "τὸ has this signification in Ezra and in Chaldaizing He- 
brew. We have, therefore, all the prominent ideas of the passage and 
even the particular clauses and general language, as exhibited in Mat- 


1 A celebrated scholar thus speaks respecting this passage in the Evang 
“Ifhe translated from the Hebrew himself, he carefully selected de 
and νόσους for $4 and 3519, in order to adapt the passage perfectly to Christ’s 
cures. And this very use of these words makes it probable that Matthew here 
made his own translation from the Hebrew.’ Eichhorn, in the Allg. Biblioth. 
der bibl. Litteratur. II. Band. 6tes Stuck. p. 973. 


344 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


thew. The form of the Greek, which is entirely suited to the purpose 
of the Evangelist, can hardly be attributed, as any intelligent person 
will admit, to any one but himself. 

This peculiar proceeding in regard to passages of the Old Testament 
evinces rather the spirit of an author working according to his own 
ideas and bending every thing to a determinate plan, than a translator, 
of whom it could hardly be ‘expected that he should enter into the 
views of the writer and act in conformity with ‘them in such a manner 
as the author himself could not have done without great care. 

Familiar as the author of the Greek text was with the Hebrew Old 
Testament, there are cases which plainly show that he had not any He- 
brew original before him. The citation of Isaiah 29: 13, in Matth. 15: 
9, is such a case. The Seventy have, indeed, given the general idea, 
but have by no means reached an exact expression of the original. 
There is nothing at all in the Hebrew corresponding tothe word μάτην; 
it would appear that the LXX read 03m for "4m; and there is no 


word for διδάσχυντες in Isaiah. The ‘words “AR Bnd, have been 
translated by σέβονταί μὲ, as if 7M& INV? was read ; ΠΡῸΣ is treated 
as a noun in the plural number, as if it were i772 =, διδασκαλίαι. 


This version, however, is not on these accounts the less titarall quoted. 
It does not appear as if the author of the Greek was a translator who 
had the Hebrew text before him, and expressed it as well as he could, 
but as if he moulded it himself according to his own fancy and judg- 
ment. 

We will now leave our Evangelist for a moment, but only with a view 
to prepare for further investigations respecting him. 


§ 13. 


Livy MARK. 


a 


4: John Mark, whom the ancients represent as ἃ disciple and fellow- 
traveller of Paul, was born, it would seem, at Jerusalem. At least his 
mother resided there, and believers assembled together in her house, 
(Acts 12: 12.) It was thither that Peter first went, when the angel de- 
livered him from prison, expecting to be gladly received. He was not 
mistaken ; he was received with all the marks of great joy. 

John Mark, and the Mark mentioned with so endearing an appella- 
tion by Peter (1 Pet. 5: 13), can hardly be distinguished from one 
another because the name John is added to the former and not to 
ΚΓ the latter.' It ought not to have escaped the learned men, who on 
this account make these two different persons, that the surname 
was the common and distinctive appellation, and that John, ὁ ἐπικλη- 
path. ἴτω (Acts 12: 25,) and ““εββαῖος 0 ἐπικληϑεὶς ᾿Θαδδαῖος, 

18 ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Βαρνάβας, ᾿Μμσῆππον τὸν καὶ Kaiaga ἐπι- 
ὑμένον, (Jos. Ant. L. XVIIL. ο. 2. n. 2,) were in common life cal- 
led als Mark, Thaddeus, Barnabas, Caiaphas. 


1 Grotius Pref. in Marc. Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. 1. 


> 
J OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 345 


δ 


The following series of incidents in the life of this John, whose sur- 
name was Mark, will make it still more clear that he and Mark were 
one and the same person. 

When Paul and Barnabas were at Jerusalem, about the time of Pe- 
ter’s imprisonment, they took John Mark to accompany them to Anti- 
och. When, afterwards, these two men were prompted by the Spirit 
to proclaim the doctrines of Jesus in other lands, they selected this John 
Mark as their assistant and companion. (Acts 12: 25. 13: 5.) 

He went with them to Cyprus: but when they removed from Paphos 
to Perga in their onward progress, Mark forsook them and returned to 
Jerusalem. (Acts 13: 13.) 

Paul and Barnabas sometime after returned to Antioch ; but their ac- 
tive disposition did not suffer them to rest long. ‘They determined 
again to visit their brethren, for the purpose of observing the success of 
their enterprise and their labors. (Acts 15: 37.) Barnabas desired to 
have Mark again as a companion; but Paul refused, alleging that he 
had forsaken them the first time, and had failed to persevere under difh- 
culties. Barnabas would not yield, preferring rather to separate from 
= fellow laborer, and went again with Mark to Cyprus. Paul chose 

ilas. 

From this time no John Mark is mentioned in the New Testament ; 
we find only Mark. (Coloss. 4: 10. 2'Tim. 4: 11. Philem. 24.) From 
the first passage, however, it is clear that this Mark is the same John 
Mark whom Paul and Barnabas associated with themselves at first, and 
on account of whom they separated. We here learn that he was rela- 
ted to Barnabas, dveweog τοῦ βαρνάβα, and now perceive why Barna- 
bas and Paul took him with them from Jerusalem, and why Barnabas 
was so attached to this Mark that he separated from Paul on his account, 
severed the ties of ancient friendship, and abandoned their common ob- 
ject, that he might have the youth by his side, and lastly, why he went 
with him a second time to Cyprus. Barnabas was a Cyprian by birth 
(Acts 4: 36); and Mark his kinsman, here met with many who were 
his relations by the side of Barnabas. 

Paul was again reconciled to him, and, in his first imprisonment had 
him in his company at Rome. When subsequently he was sent back 
by Paul on business into Asia, he visited his old instructer, Peter, with 
whom, as is clear from the first Epistle of this Apostle (5: 13,) he con- 
nected himself, and whose amanuensis he seems to have been in the 
composition of the Epistle. 


§ 14. 


As Mark, who left Jerusalem in company with Paul, must have been 
still a youth, when Peter was imprisoned by Agrippa, and as nothing 
occurs anywhere in regard to him which shows him to have been an 
eye-witness of facts and events concerning Jesus, it is proper to inquire 
as to the source of his accounts and the credentials of his historical 
authority. Whence then did Mark get his information as to what he 
narrates ? , 

When we consider that there was an assembly of believers in his 
mother’s house, and that Peter went thither first after his liberation, that 

44 


346 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 
, i. 

the latter honors him above all the believing Jews with the tender appel- 
lation Maoxos, ὁ υἱός μου, (1 Pet. 5: 18,) we cannot doubt that he be- 
stowed upon him his paternal care, a great part of which, with an Apos- 
tle; must have consisted of instruction. We must, therefore, refer his 
knowledge of the doctrines of Jesus, as well as his narrative in a great 
measure, to Peter. We might hence, moreover, consider it probable, 
though not absolutely demonstrated, that besides general information, 
he had the advantage of particular assistance and more minute ihstruc- 
tion from the Apostle i in prosecuting his work. 

But history furnishes us positive assurance of this. The first witness 
to be sure, is Papias, whose testimony would be of little value, were it 
not supported by a specification of his authority. On this occasion, 
however, he appeals expressly to his voucher, John, an Ephesian Pres- 
byter, who was probably contemporary with the fact which he asserts, or 
at all events with John the Evangelist, and from his circumstances and 
the time when he lived possessed some certain information respecting 
the documents of Christianity. According to his account, οὗτος ὁ 
πρεσβύτερος λέγει, Mark was not an immediate disciple of our Lord, 
but was intimately connected with Peter, and was his constant compan- 
ion, carefully noted down all the narratives given by him in public as- 
semblies, and formed them into a historical book. (Eusebius at the end 
of the IIId book of his H. E.) 

Clement of Alexandria“says something similar, and corroborates 
it by the authority of the most ancient fathers, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνέχα- 
ὃὃὲν πρεσβυτέρων, who are totally different persons from the pre- 
ceding, judging from the tenor of the testimony. For it comprises, like- 
wise, the assertion that the Gospels containing the genealogies appeared 
first ; a declaration which Eusebius neither found anywhere in the works 
of Papias, nor specifies as one of his opinions or assertions, and the con- 
trary of which is stated by Irenzus, who venerated Papias. He says 
now (Euseb, H. E. L. VI. c. 14) that Mark, who was for a long time 
in Peter’s company, noted down his discourses, wrote them out, and 
thus composed his Gospel. What he subjoins, too, is peculiar to him, 
viz. that Mark composed it at the instance of ‘believers, and put it into 
their hands, with no opposition and with no express approbation on the 
part of the "Apostle. 

Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion,! says it was asserted 


\, concerning Mark’s Gospel, that it properly belonged to Peter, and Mark ~ 


was only his interpreter. This we are told, too, by Origen.” 

This is likewise the real signification of the passage in Justin’s Dia- 
logue with Trypho, in which ‘he quotes the words of Mark concerning 
the sons of Zebedee, who were called sons of thunder, with the declara- 
tion that it was ἐν τοῖς aTOMYNMOvE εὐμασεν αὐτοῦ, where αὐτοῦ Tefers to 
Peter.? Christ and Peter are mentioned just before, and αὐτοῦ cannot 


1L.1V.c. 5. “ Licet et Marci quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujns interpres 
Marcus.” 

Euseb. H. E.L. VI. ο. 25. 

ab τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομιακπέ ἕναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕ ἕνα τῶν ἀποστύλων, καὶ γεγράφ-- 

“ ἕν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν. αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον, καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους 
δύο ἀδελφοὺς υἱους Ζεβεδαίου 6 οντας : μετωνομαπέναι ὀνόματε τοῦ Βοανεργὲξς, ὃ ἐοτεν 
a βροντῆς; σημαντικὸν ἦν τοῦ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον εἶναι. Ed. Rob. Steph. p. 105. e. 
i 


“αὖ π΄ 


7 


refer to both. Justin, however, invariably terms the Gospels ἀπομνη- 
μονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, and never ἀπομνημονεύματα Χριστοῦ. 
Thus, in Justin’s usual mode of speaking, the Gospel of Mark is as- 
cribed to the Apostle under the denomination ἀπομνημονεύματα αὐτοῦ 
(Πετρου.) 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 347 


§ 15. 


The Gospel written by Mark was, as we have already mentioned 
(Ὁ 2,) intended for readers but slightly acquainted with Palestine and 
with Jewish manners and customs, whence the author was induced to 
render intelligible to his intended readers, by means of explanatory ad- 
ditions, much which was familiar to the most humble native of Pales- 
tine. But this circumstance designates those for whom this Gospel was 
intended only in avery general way. The remark he makes in Chap. 
12. v. 42, is a little more definitive as to the circle of readers for whom 
he wrote. 


He speaks of the λεπτόν, a coin common in Judea, and finds it ne- | 


cessary to inform his readers of its exact value. His procedure-in this 
case is worthy of notice. He does not reckon like Josephus, who in 
such cases computed the amount in Attic money, stating the value of 
the shekel in drachms; but, to make himself intelligible to those whom 
he had in view, he subjoins the value of the λεπτόν in Roman money, 
and thus shows that he had his eye upon men who were better acquaint- 
ed with the Roman currency than any other. 

Contrary to the general custom of the biblical writers, he makes use 
of the Roman term centurio (ὁ κεντυρίων, 15: 39,) for a commander 
of sixty or a hundred soldiers. Josephus calls him ἑκατόνταρχος, as do 
likewise the other books of the New Testament ; an evidence that this 
expression was in accordance withthe usage of Palestine. It was, be- 
sides, the most intelligible word among the Greeks, it being a pure 
Greek term. This deviation from the Jewish and Greek usage can 
have been made only with reference to readers who were familiar with 
the Latin technical term, but not with the Greek. ” 

History points us to Romeitself. Those ancient teachers, οὗ avéxa- 
ϑὲν πρεσβύτεροι, extolled by Clement, relate in the passage above men- 
tioned, that Mark combined Peter’s discourses in a written narrative at 
Rome, and published it there at the request of the Christians. 

The time too, when according to historical evidence Mark publish- 
ed his Gospel, leads us to the conclusion that it must have been com- 
posed in the city which was then the capital of the world, and at all 
events, forbids us to fix upon any other place but this as the place of 
its completion and publication. 


1 This is corroborated, likewise, by other writers. Epiphan. Heres. LI.’ Axddov- 
Gos γενόμενος 6 Π]άρκος τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ ἐν “Ῥώμῃ, ἐπιτρέπεται τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ-- 
ϑέσϑαι, Δ. Hieronym. in Catal. ν. Marcus.—‘Marcus discipulus et interpres 
Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Rome a fratribus breve 
scripsit evangelium, etc.” 

r 


348 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


§ 16. 


It is true that the period at which Mark appeared as a historian is 
not stated alike by all the ancients; this want of unanimity, however, 
only renders the inquiry more tedious, but does not make the answer to 
our inquiry less certain. A story gained currency that Simon Magus 
tried the fortune of his magic arts even in Rome, and obtained divine 
honors. Justin Martyr was the original author of this story, and thought 
he found traces of the fact in the well-known inscription SEMONI 
DEO SANCO, the composition of which, either from its further contents, 
or from oral accounts, he assigns to the days of the Emperor Claudius.’ 
The hasty inference of this father, who was not very well acquainted 
with the Roman language or the Italian mythology, became the basis 
of a still more extended tale. Peter had once in another place hum- 
bled the Magian ; this fact was now united with Justin’s story, and thus 
originated a complete narrative, the personages of which were Peter 
and Simon Magus, and the scene of which was laid at Rome. Chronol- 
ogy, which was called upon to find a place in the series of real events 
for this pretended occurrence, fixed it in the reign of Claudius, in ac- 
cordance with the period assigned by Justin to the composition of 
the inscription. The inference was, that Peter must have been in 
Rome at this time, and as the circumstances appeared more suitable to 
the supposition than those of his last residence, in which he met his 
death, Mark must have composed his Gospel at this time.* 

False as is the date assigned, yet these accounts, which connect fact 
with fiction concerning Mark’s Gospel, agree in representing Rome as 
the place in which it was written. 

Trenzus has given us another chronological statement, which, as far 
as respects Matthew, agrees perfectly with what we have inferred from 
the contents of the book (ὃ 5,) and is therefore fully confirmed by this 
means. This witness, whose veracity has never been impeached, in- 
forms us as follows respecting Mark’s Gospel : “‘ Matthew published his 
work when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and founding a 
church there. After their departure, however, Mark, the disciple and in- 
terpreter of Peter, gave us in a composition of his own the accounts of 
Peter.”? The words μετὰ τούτων ἔξοδον admit a double signification : 
after their death Mark published his book, or after their departure from 
Rome. Grabe gives them the latter sense; Valois and others make 
them refer to their death. 

The interpretation of Valois is the correct one. For Peter himself used 
this expression in speaking of his death, calling it his ἔξοδος (2 Peter 
1:14, 15,) Irenzus, it would seem, here had reference to this expres- 
sion, applying to the event the peculiar word used by the Apostle. 


ee 


1 Justin’s Larger Apology, c. 26. p. 144. Ed. Rob. Steph. 
2 Euseb. Chron. ad A. III. Claud. 

3 Ὁ μὲν δὲ Martutos ἐν τοῖς “Εβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξ- 
ἤνεγκε τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν “Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελεζομένων, καὶ 
ϑεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, Mdgxos ὁ μαϑητὴς 
καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν πταρ-- 
αδέδωκε. 1,. II. Adv. Her. C. I. Euseb. Η. E. L. V.c.8. 


sa. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 349 


His words are: After the ἔξοδος of the two Apostles, Peter and Paul, 
who had preached at Rome. Now even if he, like the later writers, 
supposed that Peter was twice in Rome, first under Claudius and after- 
wards in the latter part of Nero’s reign, yet the circumstance that he 
has connected Peter and Paul with each other, and their preaching and 
residence, shows clearly that he had in his mind the latter days of the 
Apostles when they were in Rome together. 


§ 17. 


MATTHEW ANDMARK. 


Further investigations concerning their historical 
sources. 


Matthew and Mark relate almost always the same events throughout 
their histories; while on the contrary, the other Evangelists differ very 
much from one another as well as from Matthew and Mark in their se- 
lection of facts. It is therefore a reasonable inquiry: Whence arises 
this harmony between Matthew and Mark? How happens it that they 
have selected exactly the same facts from the great multitude before 
them? Were we considering profane authors, who had such an exten- 


_ sive field of history before them, we should be easily led by such an ap- 


pearance to suppose that one had the other before him while composing. 
But if, in addition to this, they agreed in their mode ofrepresenting his- 
torical facts and in the costume which they gave them, made use of the 
same number of sentences and clauses in narrating an occurrence, the 
same phraseology, the same order and position of the words, even to 
the adverbs and conjunctions, as is frequently the case with our authors, 
this would be positive proof that they did not write independently of 
each other, but either the latest followed and made use of the earliest, 
or both drew literally from a third common document. 

Considering our historians only as writers whose credibility and au- 
thority are not to be taken for granted, but are still to be determined by 
critical investigation, this conclusion is valid respecting them likewise.! 
And, in fact, their similarity is sometimes greater than can easily be found 
between two different writers, as the following examples will show. 


1 As the first question is, whether these books have any historical value, we 
naturally cannot take their inspiration into account, which can only be prov- 
ed when this point is decided. Theologians, likewise, are agreed that the style 
of the sacred books was not inspired, but belonged to the sacred writers them- 
selves; on which ground they allege proofs of the antiquity and genuineness of 
the biblical writings from their style and genius. 


350 
I. 


Matth. XV. 32 seq. 


Προσκχαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαϑητὰς 
αὑτοῦ, εἶπεν αὐτοῖς " 
Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐ ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, 
ὅτι ἤδη ἢ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, 
προσμένουσί μοι, 
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τί φάγωσι. 


ee © © © © © © © © © 8, Αἱ τ ὁ 


~ , 

Καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις 
> ~ ‘ ~ 
ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ THY γῆν" 
\ ‘ So eee Sia? 

καὶ λαβὼν τοὺς ἕπταὰ KOTOUG, 
2 , 
we ee + εὐχαριστήσας 
2» \ 7 
ἔχλασε, καὶ ἔδωκε 
~ XN c Cae 
TOU μαϑηταὶς αὐτοῦ 
οἵ δὲ μαϑηταὶ 
τῷ ὕχλῳ. 

Καὶ ἔφαγον: πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσϑησαν, 
καὶ ραν τὸ περισσεῦον 
τῶν κλασμάτων, 

νι 
ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας. 


II. 


Matth. XIII. 4 seq. 


“Καὶ ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτὸν, 
ἃ μὲν ἕπεσε παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν" 
καὶ ἦλϑε τὰ πετεινὰ, 
καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτά. 
Ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ 
τὰ πετρώδη, 

ὅπου οἷκ εἶχε γῆν πολλήν " 
χαὶ εὐϑέως ἐξανέτειλε, 
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάϑος γῆς" 
ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος, 
ἐκαυματίσϑη" 
καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν, 
: ἐξηράνϑη. ) 
“Ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰς 
ἀκάνϑας" 
καὶ ἀνέβησαν αἵ ἄκανϑαι, 
καὶ ἀπέπνιξαν αὐτά. | 


"Ἄλλα δὲ ἕπεσεν ἐπὶ 
τὴν γὴν τὴν καλήν" 
καὶ ἐδίδου καρπόν. 


THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Mark VIII. 1 seq. 


Προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαϑητὰς 
αὑτοῦ, λέγει αὐτοῖς " 
Σπλαγχνίξομαι ἐ ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, 
ὅτι ἤδη ἢ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, 
προσμένουσὶ μοι, 
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τὶ φάγωσι. 


Καὶ παρήγγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ 
ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" 
καὶ λαβὼν τοὺς into. ἄρτους, 
εὐχαριστήσας 
ἔχλασε, καὶ ἐδίδου 
τοῖς μαϑηταὶς αὑτοῦ, 
ἵνα παραϑῶσι" καὶ παρέϑηκαν 
τῷ ὄχλῳ --«-«- 
ἼΕφαγον δὲ, καὶ i ἐχορτάσϑησαν 
καὶ ἦραν περισσεύματα 
κλασμάτων, 
ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας. 


eeee 


Mark IV. 4 seq. 


Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ σπείρειν, 
ὃ μὲν ἔπεσε παρὰ τὴν ὅδόν" 
καὶ ἦλϑε τὰ πετεινὰ 
καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτό. 
᾿Αλλο δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ 
τὸ πετρῶδες, 
ὅπου οὐκ εἶχε γῆν πολλήν " 
καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλε, 
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάϑος γῆς" 
ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος 
ἐκαυματίσϑη" 
καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν 

ἐξηρ adn. 
ἄλλο δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰς 
ἀκάνϑας" 
nov ἀνέβησαν αἵ ἄκανϑαι, 
καὶ συγέπνιξαν αὐτὸ, 
καὶ καρπὸν οὐκ ἔδωκε. 
Καὶ ἄλλο ἕπεσεν sic 
τὴν γὴν τὴν καλήν" 
καὶ ἐδίδου καρπόν. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


v. 20. 


“Ὃ δὲ ἐπὶ τα πετρώδη 
σπαρεὶς, 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων 
καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς 
λαμβάνων αὐτὸν, 

οὐκ ἔχει δὲ δίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, 
ἀλλὰ πρύσκαιρός ἐστι" 
)ενομένης δὲ ϑλίψεως 

ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον, 
εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζεται. 

“O δὲ εἰς τὰς 
ἀκάνϑας σπαρεὶς, 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ τὸν λό γον ἀκούων, 
καὶ ἡ μέριμνα τοῦ αἰῶνος 
καὶ ἡ ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου 


‘ 
συμπνίγει τὸν λόγον, 
; 
καὶ ἄκαρπος γίνεται. 


Matth. ΧΧΥῚΙ. 47 seq. 
Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, 


ἰδοὺ ᾿Ιούδας, εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, 
ahs, 
καὶ wet αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολὺς 
μετὰ “μαχαιρῶν 
καὶ ξύλων, 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων 
καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ. 


Ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν 


2 » ~ ' 
αὑτοῖς σεμεῖον, λέγων" 
“νὰν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστι 

κρατήσατε αὐτόν. 


Καὶ εὐθέως προσελϑὼν 


τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, site * Χαῖρε, ϑαββί. 


“Καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. 


901 


v. 16. 


Καὶ οὗτοί... .. ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη 
σπειρόμενοι, 
οἵ, ὅταν ἀκούσωσι τὸν λόγον, 
εὐϑέως μετὰ χαρᾶς 
λαμβάνουσιν αὐτόν" 
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ῥίζαν ἐ ἐν ξαυτοὶς, 
ἀλλα πρόσκαιροί εἰσιν" 
εἶτα γενομένης ϑλίψεως 
ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον, 
εὐθέως σκανδαλίζονται. 
Kat οὗτοί εἰσίν οἱ εἰς τὰς 
ἀκάνϑας σπειρύμενοι, 
οἵ τὸν λόγον ἀκούοντες, 
καὶ αἵ μέριμναι τοῦ αἰῶνος, 
καὶ ἢ ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου, 
καὶ "αἵ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπιϑυμίαι 
εἰσπορευόμεναι, 
συμπνίγουσι τὸν λόγον 
καὶ ἄκαρπος γίνεται. 


Π|. 
Ϊ ΟΜαῖκ XIV. 43 seq. 


- 2 > ~ 
Καὶ εὐϑέως, ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, 
παραγίνεται 
32 τ 2 
Ἰούδας, sig ὧν τὼν δώδεκα, 


. Eee Mamie) ‘ 
καὶ MET αὐτοῦ οχλος πολὺς 
μετὰ μαχαιρῶν 
καὶ ξύλων, 
παρὼ THY ἀρχιερέων 
καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων. 
4εδώκει δὲ ὃ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν 
σύσσημον αὐτοῖς, λέγων 2 
“Op ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν" 
κρατήσατε αὐτὸν 
καὶ ἀπαγάχγετε ἀσφαλῶς. 
Καὶ ἐλϑὼν, εὐϑέως προσελϑὼν 
αὐτῷ, λέγει" ἹΡαββὲ, ῥαββί' 
χαὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. 


352 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


IV. 
Matth. XXIV. 32 seq. Mark XIII. 28 seq. 
> Ano δὲ τῆς συκῆς > Ano δὲ τῆς συκῆς 
μάϑετε τὴν παραβολήν" μάϑετε τὴν παραβολήν" 
ὅταν ἤδη ὃ ὃ κλάδος αὐτῆς ὅταν αὐτῆς ἤδη ὃ ὃ κλάδος 
γένηται ἁπαλὸς, ἁπαλὸς γένηται, 
“καὶ τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ, καὶ ἐχφύῃ τὰ φύλλα, 
γινώσκετε, ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ ϑέρος. γινώσκετε, ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ egos ἐ ἐστιν. 
Οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς, Οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς, 
ὅταν ἴδητε πάντα ταῦτα, ὅταν ταῦτα ἴδητε γινόμενα, 
γινώσκετε, ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν 
ἐπὶ ϑύραις. ἐπὶ ϑύραις. 
᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ᾿Δμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, 
οὐ μὴ παρέλϑη ἢ γενεὰ αὕτη, ὅτι οὗ μὴ παρέλϑῃ ἡ ἣ γενεὰ αὕτη, 
ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα μέχρις οὗ πάντα ταῦτα 
γένηται. γένηται. 
“O οὐρανὸς καὶ ἢ γῆ παρελεύσονται * | “O οὐρανὸς καὶ ἣ yh παρελεύσονται" 
οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οἵ δὲ λόγοι μου 
οὗ μὴ παρέλϑωσι. ov μὴ παρέχϑωσι. 


Can a similarity like this, which, though it do not exist throughout, 
might be exhibited in many other passages, be attributed to mere acci- 
dent? Or how could any man with extracts like these from profane 
writers lying before him, doubt that one had borrowed from the other, 
that the later writer was dependent on his predecessor 7 


§ 18. 


But may not both have drawn from the same common sources, and 
this be the cause of their agreement? When such appearances are ' 
presented, this is certainly a ‘second supposable case. Both might have 
had, perhaps, some Hebrew history of Jesus before them, as their guide 
in composing. From the fact that in ancient times there was a report 
current in regard to such a Hebrew original ; that our books appear as 
if they were translations from such a document, that their similarity, 
and at the same time the difference in phraseology frequently apparent, as 
well as their other mutual discrepancies, may be thus explained and 
reconciled, and many passages elucidated ; we are tempted to regard 
this hypothesis as something more than an hypothesis. 

Indeed, some recent essays on the Gospels! have so perfected and 
set off this theory, that one could not but be extremely prepossessed in 
its favor, were there not certain difficulties remaining, which from their 
apparently trivial character were not taken into account, but are in re- 
ality decisive against it. 

If Matthew and Mark had translated from a common Hebrew origi- 
nal, their works would not have coincided so exactly as they do in many 
places even as to the minutest points in phraseology. 

1. The copiousness of the Greek language furnished more than one 


1 Eichhorn, Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Litt. V. Band, 5th and 6th Stick. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 353 


expression corresponding to most Hebrew words; so that in the case 
supposed they might have differed much more widely from each other 
than they have. By examining the second passage cited in proof of 
their similarity (Matt. 13: 4 and Mark 4: 4 seq.,) and referring to Luke, 
who is said to have likewise followed this common original, it will be per- 
ceived in how many ways they might have deviated from each other 
even in the most simple expressions: καὶ ἀνέβησαν αἱ ἄχανϑαι καὶ 
ἀπέπνιξαν αὐτὸ is given thus by Luke (8: 7,) καὶ συμφυεῖσαι αἱ ἄκαν- 
ϑαι ἀπέπνιξαν avto—Matth. Mark : dnd δὲ, ἔπεσε ν ἐπὶ τὴν γὴν τὴν 
καλήν. Luke: καὶ ἕτερον ἔπεσε εἰς τὴν γῆν͵ τὴν ἀγαϑήν. --Μ.Μ: 
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάϑος͵ γῆς. Luke: dca τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα. --Μ. Μ: 

ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ ta πετρώδη. Luke: καὶ ἕτερον ἔπεσε ἐπὶ τὴν 
πέτραν. 

2. Now when we compare the structure of the Hebrew, Chaldee, or 
Syriac Language with that of the Greek, such an agreement is totally 
inexplicable. ‘The former have only two tenses, a past and future (and 
two ofthem, in some cases, a sign for the pluperfect); while on the 
other hand the Greek lias two future tenses of common occurrence in 
the New Testament, and the following past tenses, viz. an imperfect, 
a perfect, a first and second aorist, in the active voice, and as many ten- 
ses for the same use in the middle voice. Hence to express a past tense of 
the Hebrew or Syriac language, the Greek often had about eight tenses at 
command ; and in very many cases four might be used to. express the 
future. How then did it happen, that where ‘they agree in expression, 
they generally coincide in using the same tense in Greek? The origi- 
nal could not have led to this. Let us examine the first of the passa- 
ges adduced; instead of προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαϑητὰς αὑτοῦ, or 
AA IEA NIP, might have stood likewise προσχαλέσας, προσκαλῶν; 
instead of ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, YIN bY DDWA, avaneoa, avo- 
πεσέσϑαι, ἀναπέσασϑαι, ἀναπίπτειν, or ἀναπίπιεσθαι; for λαβών, 
the word εἰληφώς, λαβύμενος, or λαμβάνων, might just as well have 
been used; for εὐχαριοστήσας--εὐχαριστῶν, εὐγαριστησάμενος, Se. 
In the third example, too, for λαλοῦντος might have been used λαλου- 
μένου, λαλήσαντος, λαλησαμένου; for χρατῆσαιε---κρατεῖτε, χρατή-- 
σασϑε. Notwithstanding the numerous future tenses of the Greek, the 
New Testament, by an extraordinary idiom, sometimes employs a pe- 
culiar one, formed in the subjunctive mode. (Glassius Philol. Sac. P. 
I. Ed. Dathii, p. 318.) Now, whenever Matthew allows himself to 
make use of this grammatical anomaly, it appears in the same place in 
Mark, as, for instance, is to be seen in example No. IV, where, instead 
of ov μὴ παρελεύσεται, we find οὐ μὴ παρξλϑη ἡ γενεά, and instead of 
οἱ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλϑουσι or παρελεύυσονται--ουὐ μὴ παρέλϑωσι. 

2. It is well known that the Syriac, Hebrew, ὅσο. has no verbs com- 
pounded with adverbs ; while the Greek, by means of composition with 
σύν, μετά, ἐπί, παρά, κατά, εἰς, πρὸς, and the like, possesses an abun- 
dant store of expression. The Grecian is not always under any necessity 
of using these, but avails himself of them to give greater precision to his 
language, for which purpose he has a large number ready for his 
choice ; and often uses them only for the sake of variety. The Jew 
and Syrian have, generally speaking, no expedient of this kind at com- 
mand ; and it is but seldom that such a signification is contained in the 

45 


354 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


root, though sometimes it is, as in NX? he went out, M29 he went up. 
But as this is not very often the case, there is always, even when there 
appears areason from the connexion for the use of such a compound 
Were? freedom of choice from the copiousness of the Greek. For 
ὃ; ΠΤ ΏΣΏ Rap, προσκαλεσάμενος TOUS μαϑητας:---νγ8 might use συγ- 
καλεῖν, 'μετακαλεῖν, κατακαλεῖν; for προσμένουσι----περιμένουσι, 
παραμένουσι, συμμένουσι, καταμένουσι. Αἱ μέριμναι συμπν.ι- 
γουσι τὸν λόγον might be expressed also by ἀποπνίγουσι, κατα- 
πνίγουσι, ἐμπνίγουσι. “Both Evangelists, moreover, frequently use com- 
pound words without any sort of necessity. For instance, in the 3d © 
example cited, in mg00ch0wv .... κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν the com- 
pound word was so unnecessary that Luke contents himself with τοῦ 
φιλῆσαν αὐτόν; for εὐϑέως ἐξαν τειλε, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βαϑος, 
in the 2d example, ἀνέτειλε was quite sufficient. Ofthe same character, 
likewise, is the following example : 
Matt. XX. 25 | Mark X. 42. 
Οἴδατε ὅτι οἵ ἄρχοντες | Οἴδατε ὅτι ob δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν 
τῶν ἐθνῶν | τῶν ἐϑνῶν 
κατακπυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν 
καὶ οὗ μεγάλοι καὶ οἵ μεγάλοι & ἀυτῶν 

κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. χατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. 


Here the compound word κατακυριεύουσεν is unnecessary, and was 
not occasioned by the Hebrew: Luke has merely κυριεύουσιν. So too 
with κατεξουσεάζουσιν, which Luke expresses by ἐξουσιάζοντες. They 
might have used too, ἐπεκυρεεύουσε and ἀνακυρίεύουσι, as well as ἐπ-- 
εξουσιάζουσι, or the proper word αὐτεξουσιάζουσι. 

4. The orientals have no adjectives derived, from substantives.! 
Hence, when the Evangelists use them, they did not come from the 
Hebrew, but are instances of license on the part of the translator. And 
yet Matthew and Mark agree in the use of them. They tell us that the 
Baptist had a ζώνην AEPMATINHIN περὶ τὴν ὀσφῦν αὐτοῦ. This 
word cannot be translated into Syriac and Arabic, except by means of 


a noun, changing the expression to 13.450) 1, Xk> Kh iv = 

ζώνη δέρματος. The word ἄγναφος could be rendered in these latter 
, ἐπ}. ' 

languages eth by circumlocution, or by (2,2, καινὸς. (Matt. 9: 16, 


Mark 2: 21.) "Amos i in Matt. 13:57 and Mark 6: 4, is expressed in 
Luke by οὐ δεχτὸς and inJohn 4: 44 by τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. If weexam- 
ine the second passage cited above, we shall find several other instan- 
ces: ἐπὶ ta πειρωδη; Luke uses ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, and 50 it must have 


been in the original, as the Syriac translator has {So0 M2. ᾿Αλλὰ πρῦσ- 
καιροί εἰσι; Luke has πρὸς καιρόν, and so likewise the oriental, 


= 
- 
J This is mi ὦ some limitation as respects the Arabian, who uses ς «᾽ 


εὐ ην 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 355 


a 2 y yw ᾿ Ω 
«οἍ] 1.1.5.» 1.9]. “ἄκαρπος γίνεται; for this the oriental has no 
- on 


corresponding adjective, and is obliged to write boa Ilo Lo 


ears ye Mos. 

We even find them in one passage very unexpectedly agreeing in the 
use of the same dialect, the Holic; Matt. 26: 69, Mark 16: 68, xat ov 
ἦσϑα μετὰ ”/noou x. τ. A. 

So frequent agreement between two writers, in cases in which the 
character of the language into which they translated afforded numerous 
possibilities of a different choice of phraseology, and the language from 
which they translated could not lead them to any agreement, are not 
to be accounted for on the supposition of a common original text. 

5. The citations from the Old Testament, as has been shown before, 
{§ 12) are managed with great and characteristic freedom and dexter- 
ity by Matthew. Nor does Mark desert his predecessor in this point. 
Matthew (11: 10) deviated from the LXX, in the citation of Malachi 
3: 1--ἰδου ἐξατιοστέλλω τὸν ἀγγελὸν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ 
προσώπου mov, and translated it with more pointed application to the 
Baptist’s office and mission: ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ 
προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδὸν σου ἕμπροσϑέν σου. Mark 
cites the words precisely in the same way (1: 2,) and ascribes them to 
Isaiah, which shows that he did not take them from the prophet him- 
self. 

The words of Isaiah 29: 13, in Matth. 15: 8, 9, of which something 
was said in § 12, were taken from the LXX indeed, but quoted from 
memory, on which account they present a peculiar appearance as to 
their order and grammatical forms. The Apostle says: ὁ λαὸς οὗτος 
τοῖς χείλεσί μὲ τιμᾷ, 7 δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πορόω ἀπέχει an’ ἐμοῦ. 
Marny σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας, ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων; 
the LXX. have remwoi μὲ instead of μὲ tome and give the last words 
thus: μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ 
διδασκαλίας. Mark (7: 6, 7,) has likewise cited these words with the 
same variations and the same freedom. 

The words of Zech. 13: 7 were translated by Matthew himself, or 
else his memory did not faithfully recall the translation of the LXX. ; 
yet Mark agrees with him (14: 27.) It cannot be an accidental.circum- 
stance that he deserted the Septuagint whenever Matthew did, that he 
translated precisely as he did, and exhibits the citations from the Old 
Testament with exactly the same variations as Matthew. The reason 
of this, however, is to be sought somewhere else than in the Hebrew 
Bible. 

These facts do not permit any hesitation on our part absolutely to re- 
ject the notion of an original document as their common source, to 
which for the most part they literally adhered. One must have had 
the other before him, and in the Greek language too; the earlier must 
have drawn from the later, i. e., according to history, Mark must have 
made use of Matthew. 


856 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


§ 19. 


Since these investigations concerning the Gospels were first publish- 
ed the state of the question has been somewhat altered. The opinion 
is now generally abandoned, that the first three Gospels are mere trans- 
lations from a Hebrew original, which in course of time received here 
and there various additions, whence it happened that the Evangelists 
varied in respect to the number of events related, their circumstances 
etc. according to the copies which they obtained. For, while their 
dissimilarity was accounted for in this way, the explanation was rebut- 
ted by their unaccountable coincidence in phraseology in many passa- 
ges. 
~~ A learned Englishman, in particular, was brought to this convic- 
tion by a comparison of several English versions of the same text of 
the Gospels. The experiment showed him how little of such coinci- 
dence there is between several translators, even in respect to the most 
simple clauses. 

He did not, however, on this account give up the idea of an original 
Hebrew copy; but sought to sustain it by a subsidiary hypothesis. The 
original Hebrew Gospel, he supposes, was soon after its publication, 
translated by some one into Greek. This version was before our Evan- 
gelists, in the passages in which they coincide literally with each other. 

This learned man, however, perceived clearly that a Greek version 
merely was not sufficient to explain all the appearances presented ; for 
sometimes all three agree literally and must have had before them a 
common version of these passages, and sometimes two only agree in 
phraseology to the exclusion of the third, and must have had a version 
of such passages with which the third was unacquainted and from the 
use of which he was debarred. ‘This last case occurred in three differ- 
ent ways; viz. either Matthew and Mark thus agreed together, or Mat- 
thew and Luke, or Luke and Mark; in each of which cases it was ne- 
cessary to suppose a peculiar version of the passage in question from 
which they borrowed their phraseology. ΤῸ avoid all these difficulties 
he availed himself of an ingenious idea in respect to Matthew, which 
dispensed with these separate versions. Let us however hear his own 
concise exhibition of his theory. 

“St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke,”’ says he, “all three used cop- 
ies of the common Hebrew document N; the materials of which St. Mat- 
thew, who wrote in Hebrew, retained in the language in which he found 
them, but St. Mark and St. Luke translated them into Greek. ‘They 
had no knowledge of each other’s Gospels ; but St. Mark and St. Luke, 
besides their copies of the Hebrew document ἐδ, used a Greek transla- 
tion of it, which had been made before any of the additions α, β, 7, etc. 
had been inserted. Lastly, as the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke 
contain Greek translations of Hebrew materials, which were incorpo- 
rated into St. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, the person who translated St. 
Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel into Greek, frequently derived assistance 
from the Gospel of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common 
with Matthew ; and in those places, but in those places only, where St. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 357 


Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew, he had frequently 
recourse to St. Luke’s Gospel.’’! 

This theory, as thus presented, explains all appearances in regard to 
the literal agreement of the Evangelists, and hence has the recommen- 
dation of not being defective on this point. But it takes for granted 
as its fundamental position, something which it is impossible to prove, 
viz. that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; and moreover 
presupposes an original Hebrew Gospel, and likewise that there existed 
a Greek translation of it, to say nothing of the Hebrew ἡ νωμολογία 
which it assumes. 

A celebrated German scholar, perceiving how questionable was the 
first position in respect to Matthew, in order to avoid it, and still retain 
the main idea of an original Gospel, chose rather to adopt a very com- 
plex theory abounding in hypotheses, which is in substance comprehend- 
ed under the following heads. 

I, There was an original Hebrew Gospel in circulation before the 
composition of our three Gospels. This was early translated into 
Greek, and was the common source of our Evangelists in cases in which 
all the three coincide in phraseology.” 

If. But where only Matthew and Mark agree literally, the basis of 
both was a copy of the original Gospel which had already been enrich- 
ed with some additions. ‘These additions likewise existed in a Greek 
form; and inthis form they were made use of by both Evangelists for 
the sake of facilitating their task.® 

11. Where the narrative of Matthew and Luke harmonises, and 
there is even a coincidence in phraseology, the ground work is other 
Hebrew additions which were appended to the original Gospels by some 
intelligent person, and of which likewise there was a Greek translation. 
This translation was used by other writers and fully explains their liter- 
al agreement.* 

Consequently of these three Hebrew and three Greek documents, 
making six in all, our Evangelists formed three. Liberal as the Ger- 
man scholar has been in the creation of documents and sources, his 
theory is yet deficient as to the explanation of one fact; although it is 
the first requisite in regard to an hypothesis that it be sufficient to ex- 
plain all the phenomena connected with it. He represents the case in 
which Luke and Mark, to the exclusion of Matthew, agree literally, 
(a case which sometimes presents itself, as is clear from the examples 
exhibited below § 37.) as not worthy of notice. It is true that this case 
does not occur very often ; but how often is of no consequence. Even were 
there only the last two clauses of the examples cited in the section refer- 
red to above, there would still be too ht an προς τ᾿ to be ascribed 


1 Herbert Marsh’s Notes and additions to Michaelis’ Introd. Translated from 
the English by E. F. K. Rosenmiiller, Gétting. 1803. If. Th. p. 284. [2d Eng. 
Ed. of the original, Vol. III. Part. If. p. 361.) 


δὰ J. Gottfr. Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. [. Bd. Leips. 1804. § 45-55 and p. 


3 Idem, [bid. ὃ 67. p. 319, 320. 
4 Idem, Ibid. ὃ 77—83. p. 344—351. 
5 Idem, Ibid. ὃ 37. p. 38, 40. 


358 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


to chance, and we should thus be forced to assume a peculiar version 
of this phrase likewise, making the fourth in number, in order to ex- 
plain the coincidence, or else admit that one of the two Evangelists 
had the other under his eye and transferred this passage from him. But 
this agreement is not observable in many passages of considerable 
length, but, generally speaking, only in single scattered sentences, of 
which it cannot be supposed that there was a peculiar Greek version. 
Thus these appearances would compel us at all events to recur to the 
supposition that the later of the two Evangelists saw the composition 
of the other. 

Not long ago the following suppositions were devised by a learned 
man for the purpose of simplifying these theories.! 1. There existed 
an original Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Gospel for the use of those who 
preached the Christian faith in Palestine, from which Matthew compos- 
ed his in the same language. II. When the doctrines of Christianity 
began to be preached in other lands, this original Gospel was translated 
into Greek and enriched with several additions. III. From this latter 
book Mark and Luke composed their Gospels, whence arose an agreement 
between them in matter and phraseology, in such passages as they have 
in common. IV. Matthew, too, was translated into Greek, and the 
translator while employed in his work made use of Mark’s Gospel, and 
thus occasioned the frequently striking similarity of expression. V. He 
sometimes even interpolated Matthew from Mark, and hence arose an 
agreement between them in respect to matter, in cases in which Luke 
differs from both. VI. Where, however, Matthew and Luke agree, to 
the exclusion of Mark, the coincidence was occasioned by subsequent 
interpolations, such passages, having been transferred into Luke from 
Matthew. VII. Where the translation of the original Gospel had noth- 
ing added to it subsequently, all three coincide in matter, and, on account 
of what is stated in Nos. II and IV, even in phraseology. 

The peculiar characteristic of this theory, viz. the supposition of in- 
terpolations, enabled the author to diminish the number of documents, 
of which so many were necessary according to the theory of Eich- 
horn. 


§ 20. 


Besides the fact that each of these theories is not an individual hy- 
pothesis, but consists of many particular hypotheses united, and that 
the second of them does not even account for all appearances, and the 
third, as we shall show in the sequel, wants internal validity; there are 
general objections against them all, which have never been answered. 
The chief of these, arranged under five heads, respect the original Gos- 
pel. Our position is that such an one never existed. 

1. Such a work for a long time could be of no use as a history, to in- 
form the inhabitants of Palestine of what Jesus had done. It could 
not possibly tell them so much as they themselves had seen, and as a 
multitude of eyewitnesses knew and could relate for many years after. 


1 Gratz, Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien zu er- 
klaren. Tubing. 1812. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 359 


2. What then could be the object of it? to meet what want was it 
composed? ‘The reply is that a written document was necessary to 
guide the preachers of the Gospel, so that they might exactly concur 
with each other in their doctrinal positions and their discourses. Very 
well ; but, for the same reason which rendered it useless to put in cir- 
culation among the people any historical book, the history was not even 
taught orally, so long as it was made known by the general voice of per- 
sons in Palestine who were contemporary with the events. The mode 
of teaching practised by the apostles, as we shall show when we come 
to explain Luke’s introduction to his Gospel, was to assume the history 
of our Lord as something well known and admitted, and to connect in- 
ferences or doctrines with the accounts certified by common report ; 
particularly, likewise, to cite in comparison passages of the Old Testa- 
ment, in order to prove that what was said in the prophets respecting 
the Messiah had met with its fulfilment in Jesus. 

Even in foreign lands, it was not possible for the apostles, unless they 
abode long in one place as Paul did at Corinth and Ephesus, to enter 
into a regular narrative of the fortunes and acts of Jesus. 

3. Consequently, in a doctrinal discourse the principal aim must have 
been to make an application of prophetic passages; for which purpose 
it became necessary to keep note of the events to which such passages 
related. 

But neither was there at first any written exhibition of these to serve 
as a guide, though one was composed in the sequel. Before there could 
have been any such written account, all Christians were in the habit of 
seeking for the events of Jesus’ life in the prophecies, and of finding 
them there described. 

Not long after our Lord’s resurrection, Peter, on the day of Pente- 
cost, took occasion from the charge of intoxication to direct his discourse 
by an ingenious transition to an explanation of the Messianic days, and 
then to Jesus the Messiah, whose death and resurrection he showed to 
have been predicted in the Old Testament (Acts 2: 14—42;) and this 
so as to convince three thousand persons. As yet there was not even any 
plan of operation, much less any books of instruction; nor did this first 
unpremeditated experiment on the part of Peter, much as it was re- 
commended by its success, give rise to any expedient of this kind. His 
observation on what is said in Ps. 16: of the death and resurrection of 
the Messiah was not transferred into the original Gospel ; for Matthew, 
who expressly undertook to exhibit such comparisons throughout his 
whole book, did not find it there, nor did any other of the Evangelists. 

We forbear to comment on Peter’s subsequent discourses; but we 
must say a few words of the discourse of Philip. He explained to the 
officer of Candace, without any premeditation, the words of Isaiah 43: 
7 seq. as relating to Jesus the Messiah (Acts 8: 32—36.) Notwith- 
standing the significance with which this passage of the prophet repre- 
sents the conduct of Jesus in his sufferings and death, it has not found its 
way into either of our books, which are said to have been derived from 
the original Gospel. 

If ever such a book had been composed as a guide in reference to the 
application of prophetic passages, it would certainly have been founded 
on the earliest and most successful attempts at conversion made by the 


360 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


leaders and chief speakers among the Christians. But this was not 
the case, as is shown by the examples we have cited. Generally, too, 
Mark has but few comparisons of prophecies in his book, and Luke still 
fewer; but such comparisons could not have escaped them if they drew 
their materials from an original Gospel of this kind. 

4. Moreover, an original Gospel, archetype, prototype, or whatever 
the imagined book may be called, is contradicted by history. Those 
Cyprians and Cyrenians, whom flight from persecution led to Antioch, 
taught there and founded a church, and yet no idea was entertained of 
providing them with a written history (Acts 11:2}, 22.) If these per- 
sons could do this without such a manual, why not the eye-witnesses of 
the history and specially authorised teachers? 

Paul had even already passed through the south of Asia Minor with 
Barnabas, without any written document of the kind. A long time 
after, when he had returned from his journey, he held conversation with 
the apostles at Jerusalem in regard to his doctrinal views, that he might 
not labor and strive in vain. (Galat. 2: 1,2.) Thus too Barnabas, his 
assistant and fellow-traveller, knew nothing of any book of instruction, 
although he was deputed by the apostles with full authority as a teacher 
to regulate the affairs of the church at Antioch(Acts ΕΠ: 22 seq.,) and 
had imparted instruction to the society for a whole year, with the assis- 
tance of Paul. Now how can we suppose the existence of a manual to 
guide the Apostles in the duties of their office, while Paul and Barna- 
bas knew nothing of it, when they preached to the church at Antioch, 
nor at a later period, more than twenty years after our Lord’s death, 
after they had travelled over many countries of Asia Minor in the exer- 
cise of their ministerial vocation ὃ 

Itis clear that Paul adhered to no such book; but had himself en- 
tered into investigations concerning our Lord’s history, and was in pos- 
session of accounts which we seek in vain in the writings of others. 
Take for instance the beautiful saying of our Lord which he mentions 
in Acts 20: 35; the words of Christ at the last supper, (1 Cor. 11: 24— 
27,) in regard to which Paul is followed by Luke (22: 19, 20); and the 
particular information he gives us respecting the resurrection, (1 Cor. 
15: 6=7.)? 

5. As more than twenty years after Jesus’ death no written plan of 
instruction was communicated to the persons sent forth as teachers, if 
there ever was such an one it must have been composed at a subsequent 
period. But then it certainly could not have been written in the He- 
brew or Aramzan language, asisimagined. Of what use would have 
been a work of this kind in Hebrew, after Christianity had been preach- 
ed every where in Palestine and its vicinity, andthe Greeks were now 
becoming believers ? 

But on the other hand Hebrew phrases are pointed out to us, which, 
itis said, make it evident that our Evangelists translated from the He- 


1 As the deputies of the Apostles to Antioch had no document communicated 
to them, they had notany Greek translation of one for the use of the church 
at Antioch, as is alleged. Gratz, Neuer Versuch, &c. § 27. p. 108, 109. 

2 If the memoranda which Paul had concerning the life and doctrines of Jesus 
are to be termed his Gospel, so be it; but his collections and the so-called origi- 
nal Gospel, have no connexion with each other. Ἶ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 361 


brew. Therecertainly are passages in which they differ from each oth- 
er in a single word or clause, though otherwise harmonizing; one 
selecting this, and the other that, particular expression. And in such 
cases, as soon as we call to mind the corresponding Hebrew or Ara- 
mean word, we see clearly the source of their difference in phraseology ; 
as e. g. (tochoose the simplest instance,) Matthew calls the servant of 
the centurion παῖς, and Luke δοῦλος, ὍΣΣ in Hebrew signifying both. 

But this might have happened without the intervention of any Hebrew 
book. These writers did what we are all obliged to do when we un- 
dertake to speak or write a living language which we have but imper- 
fectly learned. Hebrews and Aramzans as they were, they thought in 
their mother-tongue what they were to say in the foreign one; they 
planned the sentence in their mind in Hebrew, read it over, as it were, 
to themselves, and then sought the Greek words to turn it into Greek. 
Now it could not but happen sometimes that one would miss the most 
appropriate expression, while the other attained it, or thought he did. 

All depends on the circumstance that one took pains to avoid com- 
mon Hebraisms, while the other did not. It is, however, forcing the 
matter to an extreme, if we attempt to explain in this way all the verbal 
discrepancies which we meet with. Of the well-known explanations 
of this kind, how few are really simple, striking, and satisfactory? But 
even if they possessed these characteristics, and the number was much 
greater, their force would be only that of induction, and would rest on 
the following syllogism. We know, from examples, that when there 
are small discrepancies in expression between these writers, as soon as 
we turn the sentence into Hebrew or Aramzan, it is instantly plain 
what was the source of the difference in phraseology. Now the num- 
ber of these cases is so great, that they cannot be attributed to accident, 
or to ingenuity on our part. Weare, therefore, referred to an original 
Hebrew text, which was the basis of all the three Gospels. 

This is a correct statement of the argament aimed at in attempts of 
this kind. So long as the truth of the major and middle propositions is 
doubtful, so long as the examples are so few in number, and so few 
even of these are good ones, we may regard this argument from induc- 
tion as a debt, acknowledged indeed, but yet unpaid, and which proba- 
bly never will be paid. Who can explain from the Hebrew, how Mat- 
thew (12: 28,) could translate ἐν πρεύματε ϑεοῦ, and Luke (11: 20,) 
ἐν δακτύλῳ Jeon; Matthew (7: 11,) δώσει ἀγαθά, and, Luke (11: 13,) 
δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον; Matthew (6: 26,) meteeva τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, and 
Luke (12: 24,) τοὺς κόρακας Could mm be mistaken for PAE; 
WIPI m7 for nisy; or ov Ay for DAIS? We will cite a few 
more instances of thischaracter. Matth. 10: 29, δύο στρουϑία ασσαρίου 
πωλεῖται, and Luke 12:6, πέντε στρουϑία πωλεῖται ἀσσαρίων δύο. 
Matth. οὐ πεσεῖται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ; Luke, οὔκ ἐστε ἐπιλελησμένον. Matth. 
23:23, τὸ κύμενον; Luke 11: 42, πᾶν λάχανον. Matth. 23: 13, κλείετε 
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν; Luke 11: 52, ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνω- 
σέως. Matt. 5: 48, τέλειοι; Luke 6: 86, oixtiouoves. Matth, 5: 4, 
ὅτι αὐτοὶ παραχληϑήσονται; Luke 6: 21, ὅτε γελάσετε. What is the 
Hebrew word, in each of these cases, from which these discrepancies 
might have originated as two different modes of translation. 

6. To support the hypothesis of an original Hebrew Gospel with its 

4 


362 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


various copies and versions, from which our Gospels are said to have 
originated, a prop has been used which has itself no firmness, viz. the 
subsidiary hypothesis that no one of the Evangelists could have seen 
the work of his predecessor and made use of it as the basis of his own. 

What hindrance was there in the way? Did the idea of composing 
such a work strike all three at the same moment? and did they carry it 
into execution at precisely the same time? It has never entered the 
minds of even those who seem to occupy themselves with the invention 
of novel theories, to maintain this. If, however, our historians publish- 
ed their works at different times, must not the work of the earlier writer 
have been known to the later? Did Luke know of the works of many 
others, of whom he speaks in his introduction, and was he unacquaint- 
ed with those of his own colleagues? Did they indeed mutually es- 
trange themselves from each other, to such a degree as to break all so- 
cial bands, while they were laboring for the preservation and extension 
of the same cause? 

Whether they abode in the Christian countries of Asia, or in the new- 
ly converted parts of Europe, they were still in the Roman dominions, 
not far from the bosom of the Mediterranean Sea, the central point of 
all trade and intercourse. Had Rome no connexion with the two prin- 
cipal cities in her Asiatic possessions, Ephesus and Antioch? And 
were not these two cities likewise the principal seats of Christianity ? 
Was not Corinth the theatre of all kinds of traffic and business? Did 
not Asiatic vessels sail to Macedonian ports, and Macedonian vessels to 
Asiatic ports? Had the Pheenicians ceased to frequent the sea? Were 
not Alexandrian vessels seen in the harbors of Asia and Italy? Then, 
too, Rome was the great rendezvous to which subjects resorted from all 
quarters of the globe to seek justice, to transact business, and to traffic 
in costly articles of merchandise. In behalf of this hypothesis, there- 
fore, we should be forced to imagine a totally different world from 
the present; or else assert that Christians had designedly broken off 
all ftadly relations, and were desirous to know nothing of each 
other. 


§ 21. 


It is nevertheless insisted, that neither saw the earlier work of either 
of the others, and proof is offered to sustain the assertion. 

There are, it is said, two alternatives possible in respect to the literal 
agreement of the first three Gospels. Either one of them saw and used 
the work of another ; or else they drew in such cases from a third com- 
mon source, or from several. Now the first of these alternatives, it is 
continued, is not supposable; we must therefore adopt the second, with 
such combinations as are necessary to explain all the facts in respect to 
language, phraseology, and other points. 

But why is not the first alternative supposable? It is replied, that 
these writers differ from each other in respect to circumstances, often 


1 Dr. Vogel notices difficulties of this kind in his essay ‘ Ueber die Entste- 
hung der drey erster Evangelien,”’ in Gabler’s “ Journ, fiir auserles. theol. 
Litter.” [. Bd. I. Stick. p. 11—25. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 363 


do not coincide as to designations of time, and even vary from each 
other in essential points, giving an entirely different appearance to events 
or discourses, and sometimes exhibiting discrepancies which border on 
absolute contradiction; and this could not have been the case, if one 
had seen the writings of the others. Sometimes, too, one is diffuse in 
his narration where another is concise, so that the supposition of the 
the latter having seen the work of the former would make him to have 
cast a slight, as it were, on the fuller details of his predecessors. 

These arguments, it is said, make it clear that all the positions as- 
sumed to solve the problem presented, are correct and irrefragable. 
Let us make trial of them in their application to two other writers ; for 
ἃ moment supposing ourselves uncertain as to their mutual relation. 
Let them be the historians Livy and Polybius. We now wish to prove 
that Livy did not see Polybius, and, vice versd, that Polybius did not see 
Livy. One sometimes varies from the other as to the circumstances of 
events ; they differ likewise as to the date of certain facts; they con- 
tain discrepancies which border on contradiction ; indeed, one declares 
the contrary of what the other asserts; and lastly, neither has always 
-made proper use of the more extended detail which he might have 
found in the other. Therefore neither knew any thing of the other; 
Livy knew nothing of Polybius, and Polybius nothing of Livy. Now 
is this true? is it perfectly correct? Livy, it is well known, expressly 
refers to Polybius in several books of his history. 

Thus an historian may have read the work of a competitor on the 
same subject, and yet not have renounced his own judgment, may make 
use of his own special investigations, and strive to excel the previous 
writer by making further researches; he may have read him, and yet 
understand many circumstances differently, prefer another chronology 
in many cases, and arrange facts in another order. He may have read 
him, and yet vary from him; he may have read him, and yet venture to 
entertain a different opinion. He may sometimes be concise because 
he has read the work of his predecessor and has found the subject ex- 
hausted. This we might think no man ever doubted. Yet no atten- 
tion has been paid to these considerations in the most recent works on 
this subject. 

Now why should not what is acknowledged to be valid in respect to 
profane writers, be admitted to be applicable to the authors of the Gos- 
pels ? 

Why may not one of them, even if he had the work of another before 
him, have deviated from his predecessor? Is the reason an external one, 
or does it not lie wholly in the design of the Evangelists? There is 
no external necessity, no prohibition, in the case; this constraint must 
have been imposed upon them solely by a special regard to their circum- 
stances, by a sort of mutual understanding between them. 

Now such a principle would be a bad one, and is shared with them 


1 Eichhorn’s Einleit. in das neue Test. 1Bd. ὃ 39—45. He was preceded by 
Dr. Herbert Marsh in his Notes and Additions to Michaelis’ Introd. p. 245, Germ. 
Edit. (2d Eng. Ed. Vol. IIT. P. 11. p. 320, seq.] Bertholdt has treated this argu- 
ment with his accustomed perspicuity in his Hist. Krit. Einieit. in die Schriften 
des A.und N. T. IIL. Th. ὃ 312—319. 


904 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


(if they followed it,) by no good writer. Nor is it a proper course to 
commence the business of investigating the sources and merits of any 
historian with such a supposition. We can arrive at positions of this 
kind only at the close of the whole investigation, and it would be bad 
enough then to come to such a conclusion. 

Yet one cannot help suspecting sometimes that the course of recent 
criticism has depended on the fact, that a passage has been extracted 
here from Matthew and there from Mark or Luke, and then the infe- 
rence made from the discrepancy between them that neither saw the 
other’s work or he would have varied from him. 

Is it meant (for we are left wholly to conjecture on this point,) that 
Mark could not in a particular passage have varied from Matthew, or 
Luke from Mark, etc., because the narrative of the latter of the two is 
most accurate? How can this be known beforehand, when we are 
but just on the point of entering upon an inquiry into their historical 
merits? This, again, is beginning with the assumption of something 
which we cannot know until the close of our investigation. | 

Nothing of this kind can with certainty be maintained in the outset 
from individual passages or detached clauses, as the variations may be 
occasioned by many different reasons, some of which we may not be 
able to perceive until we have obtained a clear understanding of the 
course of procedure and the habits of each writer, both separately and 
relatively to the rest. Now for this purpose it is essential that the plan of 
each of these works should be discovered, that not only the number but 
the scope of the different parts of the narrative should be rightly esti- 
mated, and that each writer’s peculiar style of description and narration, 
and every one of his prominent peculiarities, should be clearly understood. 
When all this is accomplished, and then only, we are in a situation to 
pronounce which of these books bears the greatest resemblance to a 
first attempt; which strives most after strict precision in chronology and 
in the representation of circumstances ; which adds to this precision a 
copiousness not to be found in the rest ; and which has advanced nearest 
to perfection. ‘Then only can we decide with certainty, that one could 
not have failed to make use of the work of another if he had read it. 
But to assume certain positions as truths at a premature stage of the in- 
vestigation, and then introduce them into the inquiry as arguments, will 
serve any purpose rather than that of affording a just conclusion. 


§ 22. 


Hitherto no pains have been thought too great and no methods too 
various to be taken for the sake of enabling the hypothesis of an origi- 
nal written Gospel to keep the field. Instead of this an oral one is 
now proposed to us. Such an one was long ago thought of and writ- 
ten about, but excited no particular attention. ‘The fact that the many 
objections to the former theory have been gradually admitted, has brought 
the theory of an oral Gospel into greater relief, and it has at last been 
clothed by Dr. Gieseler with all the attractive charms of eloquence. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 365 


He recommends the adoption of it as a simple mode of explaining the 
coincidences and discrepancies between our first three Gospels.! 

We agree with his remarks in opposition to an original written Gos- 
pel, or as he prefers to call it written Diegesis, but are by no means so 
ready to admit all he has premised in order to pave the way for his own 
theory. In particular, we protest ayainst the assertion that no particular 
succession of the four Gospels has any historical support. The case is 
not so bad as that. Could the advocates of an original Gospel, oral or 
written, adduce such ancient evidence and authorities in support of their 
positions, as we presented in the outset of this investigation (Part 11. ὃ 
1.) to serve as its basis, they would hardly be content that these appear- 
ances and statements should be considered as amounting toa probable 
hypothesis. The absence of pretension does not detract from their 
value. 

We will now state the principal features of the proposed hypothesis. 
For several years after our Lord’s death, the Apostles lived together in 
intimacy at Jerusalem. ‘The subject of their conversation was their 
glorified Master ; the events of his life, as well as his discourses, were 
discussed by them, each in proportion to its importance considered in its 
bearing on the subject of a Messiah. In such discussions the memory 
of one was aided and corrected by that of another ; and thus the events 
and doctrines came to be accurately understood and firmly fixed in the 
memory. 

Now when one of the apostles in presence of the rest imparted in- 
struction to those who were preparing to assist in preaching the gos- 
pel, what had been freely treated of in conversation received a histori- 
cal form in consecutive narration. In order to prevent any distor- 
tions of facts in repeating them, the phraseology was determined, and 
with it likewise the thought. ‘The apostles thus acquired a superin- 
tendence of the subject, and agreed among themselves in respect to the 
selection of such events as in point of dignity and other characteris- 
tics bore the stamp of the Messiah. In this way they formed a perma- 
nent doctrinal standard, which caused a uniform representation of the 
subjects which it treated. It comprehended the passages which are 
common to the first three of our Gospels. ‘ 

On the other hand, narratives were delivered to the novices above- 

“mentioned with more or less of detail according to their various shades 
of importance, and in unimportant narratives the phraseology was less 
restricted. Sometimes, too, private recollections of the apostles crept 
into their discourses. Hence arose sundry variations in particular 
parts of the account. 

The stereotype narrative thus formed was preserved and circulated 
only by oral communication. It was necessary that such novices of tal- 
ent as were designed for teachers should commit it to memory. It was 
repeated over to them until it was imprinted in their recollection. 

The language at first was Aramean; but as Hellenists, likewise, 


1 Historisch-kritischer Versuch uber die Entstehung und frubesten Schicksale 
der schrifilichen Evangelien. By Dr. J. C. Gieseler. Leips. 1818. 


366 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 

8 
were received into the church, the narrative was translated with the 
same care into Greek. 

I cannot avoid repetition here and there, in calling to mind what Ε 
have before said, and in referring to positions which are subsequently, 
though not as yet, sustained by the requisite proof. I myself am 
likewise of opinion that the history of Jesus was for a long time propa- 
gated in the country where the events occurred by means of oral narra- 
tion; not, however, on the part of the apostles, but the people generally. 
On this account the apostles appealed to the common knowledge in re- 
gard to what had happened, in order to attain their ulterior purposes 
without unnecessary delay. (See below, ὃ 33.) So little had length of 
time been able to erase the recollection of these events from the minds 
of the people, that when Matthew wrote his history he could appeal to 
common report in behalf of what he said concerning the watch at the 
sepulchre. (28: 15.) 

In this way the apostles gained leisure for other purposes ; ; for incul- 
cating the Messianic dignity of Jesus and the necessity of conversion. 
Nothing but the Messianic dignity would serve as authority in the eyes 
of the Jews for innovations in religion. The principal concern was the 
establishment of the new religion ; the Messiahship only contained the au- 
thority for this, or the divine warrant. It was not itself the doctrine, but 
was the seal of the sacredness and obligatory nature of the doctrine, and 
it was only from accidental circumstances that it became the main idea 
of Matthew’s book, as the prevailing idea in John’s is that Jesus was the 
Son of God. Now although the occasion and object of the works of the 
other Evangelists were different, still the direction taken by the first 
writer had an influence on their productions; especially on that of 
Mark, and ina less degree on that of Luke. The evidence of this Messi- 
anic dignity was not contained in one or two facts merely, which it was 
necessary to relate, but in the whole life and actions of Jesus together, 
which were sufficiently attested by common report; e.g. in the fact 
that he sprang from the house of David, was born at Bethlehem, went 
about endued with miraculous power, healed grievous infirmities and 
diseases, &c. &c., and after being unjustly executed arose from the 
dead. To this latter circumstance alone they gave themselves as 
authority. The rest of the argument they made out by a comparison 
of the commonly known facts in the life of Jesus with the characteristics 
of the Messiah as stated by the prophets. In respect to the mode of 
teaching practised by the apostles, we refer a second time to our obser- 
vations on the introduction to Luke. (§ 33.) Now let it be consider- 
ed whether the supposition of an original historical Gospel, either oral 
or written, be compatible with this state of things. 

The proof that Jesus was the Messiah, was only introductory and pre- 
paratory to his doctrines. The main thing was his system for enno- 
bling human life and reforming the nations of the earth. Of this very 
little was retained or comprehended by the common people of Pales- 
tine; for it is far easier to imprint amazing events on the recollection 
than words of moral wisdom. No rhapsodist could fix these in the 
hearts of men, by reciting narratives which he had committed to memo- 
ry. It was necessary, not merely that they should be repeated to others 
by the preacher of the faith, but that they should be deeply imprinted 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 367 


on his own mind—should fill his whole soul. He had to address men, 
to exhort, warn, encourage, and rebuke them. This was the ἔργον 
εὐαγγελίστου, (2 Tim. 4: 2—6,) the business of ateacher. It was no 
mechanical work, but one of free,voluntary action. What a superficial 
and derogatory idea of the task of preachers of the faith is entertained 
by those who make it to have consisted in declaiming a history which 
they had learned by heart! 

Supposing the apostles to have undertaken to communicate a narra- 
tive of the life of Jesus, it would, even without intention, have been al- 
tered in its form by repeated recital. In recitation it was not incum- 
bent on an apostle, even according to the hypothesis of Gieseler, to 
drive from his mind and consign to oblivion whatever his own memo- 
ry suggested. It was with them as with other men; frequent repetition 
of the narrative must have awakened recollection of circumstances and 
doctrines connected with the events, recollection of what preceded, 
what followed, and of similar facts, according to the well-known laws of 
mind. In this way the history must have acquired such fulness of de- 
tail in its particular parts, and grown to such bulk as a whole, that when 
it became necessary to publish it in writing, it might have appeared at 
once as a complete work, and a second, third, and even fourth historian 
would have been entirely needless. Ifany object that the apostles had 
not the ability to narrate of themselves what accidentally occurred to 
their recollection, let them consider that an ordinary man knows how to 
relate what he has himself seen, and learns the narrative by heart from 
frequent repetition. 

On the other hand, as the Messianic dignity of Jesus and his words 
were of chief importance, and the history of his life was never detailed, 
but, whenever it was necessary to make use of it, was assumed as known 
to the_people, it could not but happen, as it did, that after the lapse of 
years only partial recollections, general and indefinite in respect to cir- 
cumstances, would be awakened in the minds of those who undertook 
to write the narrative of Christ’s life, and that an exact representation 
of facts could be recovered only gradually and by means of several 
writers, each stating his own impressions. 

The objection against a written Gospel which we made above, (§ 20,) 
drawn from the life of Paul, applies likewise to an oral Diegesis. When 
Barnabas, and with him Paul, undertook to preach in Antioch, the for- 
mer must certainly have had by heart the original Gospel, if there was 
any such, and Paul must have learned it from him. How, then, did it 
happen that Paul, after having already met with great and conscious 
success as an apostle in Asia Minor, felt the necessity of conferring 
with the apostles at Jerusalem on points of doctrine, that he might not 
labor in vain? (Galat. 2: 1,2.) No -hesitation on these points could 
well have arisen had he learned and preached an oral Gospel. Now if 
there was not any such standard Gospel at that time, it was not formed 
until it was too late. 

These general arguments might perhaps suffice; but, not to dismiss 
the matter too hastily, we will say something further against a few essen- 
tial parts of the hypothesis as it is presented. 

It undertakes to explain both the coincidence and variation of the 
first three Gospels by the character of the oral Diegesis. To accom- 


368 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


plish this the following positions are assumed : the more important parts 
were recounted oftener and with more precision than those which were 
less important; whence arose coincidence in regard to the former while 
in regard to the latter more freedom was allowed the Diegetes. Now 
we might, on the contrary, cite instances in which the most important 
events were not recounted so often or with such precision as to preclude 
variation in the narrative of the Evangelists. As, however, it would be 
necessary first to settle the question of the importance of a particular 
account, we will select one which will need no previous discussion. I 
do not fear contradiction when I consider the resurrection as the most 
important event in the whole history. And this very event was not thus 
recounted, even in substance, still less in any precise phraseology, as is 
proved by the visit of the woman to the sepulchre. We do not deny 
that Jesus was often the subject of conversation among his disciples af- 
ter he was glorified; but if from their conversations a regular narrative 
had been gradually formed for use in preaching, the details of this part of 
the history would have been fixed with extreme precision while the 
witnesses were yet together. This was evidently not the case; the 
whole was entrusted to each one’s individual knowledge. Our mode 
of explaining the facts in the case is this: the apostles had seen and 
spoken with our Lord many times after he arose from the dead, and 
were so certain of the resurrection that they did not trouble themselves 
very much (at least to inform each other) in regard to the circumstan- 
ces by which the fact first became: known. 

It is supposed that the further oral propagation (magadoovg) of the 
Diegesis, which had thus originated in the conversations of the apostles, 
was effected in the following way. Persons were sought for who were 
qualified for the ministry, and were made to imprint the whole literally 
on the memory from hearing it frequently repeated. Were the supposi- 
tion merely that a few prayers or short narratives were to be learned by 
heart literally, it might be reasonable ; but the case is different in res- 
pect to an entire Gospel, or the passages common to the first three Gos- 
pels, which must have formed a history, to say the least, as large as our 
Gospel by Mark. In sucha case, there would be room for applying 
what was said by the head of the Spartan council to the Athenian orator : 
I digdipot comprehend the close of your speech, and, before you reached 
the close, I had forgotten the beginning. It must have been necessary 
for the learner to have heard the Diegesis so often and with such rigo- 
rous attention that he would have learned it ten times more easily from 
a written document, and for the narrator to repeat it over so often that 
it would have been ten times more easy for him to have dictated or writ- 
ten it; so that we are left in doubt which would have been placed in the 
most vexatious situation by such impolitic management. 

This difficulty was felt by the learned proposer of the hypothesis, and 
he imposed upon himself by his learning, without succeeding in justify- 
ing his supposition. ‘he examples to which he appeals do not prove 
what he imagines they do. The prayers of the communion-service and 
the symbolum fidet bear no comparison with such a task; neither dothe 
early recollections of Ireneus. Just as little do the Mishnaioth, or 
δευτερώσεις, which were only single laws or short decisions of casuis- 
tical questions, particularly the decisions of Hillel, Shammai and Akiba, 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 369 


and even these were written down by the pupils and afterwards com- 
mitted to memory. ‘They were collected together from such records of 
them by R. Judah Hakkadosh. Few decisions are of as early a date as 
the time of the Asmoneans. It will not be expected that we should 
credit the pretended traditions from Mt. Sinai. There still remain two 
facts, however, on which the whole matter depends. Gregory relates 
of the paralytic Servulus, that, though unable to read, he acquired a 
knowledge of the Holy Scriptures according to the measure of his abil- 
ity by hearing them read. (Homil. XV. in Evang.§ 5.) But the fath- 
er says nothing about a literal commitment to memory. The passage 
from Augustine, and that alone, isstrictly in point. Hestates( De Doctr. 
Christ. L. I. § 4,) that the Egyptian monk Antonius was said to have 
learned the Sacred Scriptures by heart, from merely hearing them (au- 
diendo memoriter tenuisse.) But Augustine refers the reader to com- 
mon report, (predicatur,) for the truth of which he does not vouch. 
Commendable caution ; for Antonius could not only read and write, but 
was even himself an author. 


§ 23. 


Will it be much amiss for us, after driving about a long time in the 
unfathomable space of conjecture, once more to plant our feet on histor- 
ical ground, and, instead of devising something unreal, apply the prin- 
ciples of true criticism to the real facts before us? What is there then 
which forbids us to consider Matthew as an independent writer ? 

Even if the existence of some previous biography of Jesus could be 
rendered probable, it would not have been proved that Matthew drew 
from it; and still less should we be entitled to take this for granted, for 
that would be to doubt whether one who was himself an eye-witness was 
original in the narrative he presents. 

Respecting such a doubt as this, one really knows not what to say. 
Once people were in the habit of thinking pretty much as follows on 
this subject. When phenomena of sense are in question, they rest, so far 
as they are considered merely as such, on the warranty of the senses; 
and when our own senses are not within the horizon of the phenomenon, 
we refer to the senses of a third person, and know that the highest proof 
of the existence of something perceptible is the perception of the per- 
ceiver. From this principle, it was thought, proceeded the chief rule 
in historical criticism, viz. that when I was not myself at the scene of the 
occurrences and did not receive the impression of them through my own 
senses, I must refer for a knowledge of them to the perception of an- 
other who was a spectator, to the eye-witness, and with him all further 
question in respect to historical phenomena, considered as such, is to 
be discontinued. Thus Matthew is to be considered as original in his 
narration, in every case in which he was an eye-witness. 

There are, however, but few facts in his book from which history ex- 
cludes him ; of all that took place after he was called to be an apostle 
only two of which he was not a witness with others, viz. the transfigu- 
ration on the mount and the occurrence in the house of Jairus. In ev- 
ery other case he was μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα, and was as well acquainted as 
either of the twelve with what occurred in Galilee, to which his narra- 


370 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


tive is exclusively confined, with the exception of the account of the 
passion, the scene of which was Jerusalem, where however he, as well 
as the other apostles, abode at the time. 

This alone might show him to be original in his narration, viz. that his 
book contains nothing which did not take place while he was present 
or near at hand; that he does not overstep the boundaries of Galilee, 
his native region, leaving unnoticed all that occurred in Judea, which 
was at a distance from his position. 

II. Were any one toseek for some remoter source of the Memorabil- 
ia of Socrates than Xenophon, and to boast of the following position as 
the sagacious result of his researches, viz. that Xenophon found these 
Memorabilia already in existence, and perhaps had the merit of im- 
proving them somewhat in point of style, or (according to another hypoth- 
esis) that he compiled them from fragmentary and detached accounts, 
how would such a supposition be received? He was a disciple of the 
celebrated philosopher, whom Socrates met and attached to himself as 
Jesus did Matthew. From that time forward, with the exception of a 
few hours when Socrates drank the cup of poison, he was an eye-wit- 
ness of his actions, his companion and friend. When he communicates 
to us the circumstances of the philosopher’s life from that period, it is 
necessary that we should know him to have been totally incapable of 
such a composition, before we can be justified in referring his narrative 
to any one but himself. ᾿ 

Just so in regard to the disciple of Jesus; it must be proved that he 
had not ability adequate to this production. But which of the twelve, to 
judge from his condition and calling, would be likely to write such a 
work with more facility than he? Must not a portitor and official 
receiver of the customs, who was brought by his occupation into exten- 
sive intercourse with the world, have possessed more experience in wri- 
ting than fishermen and the like? ia 

Does the production exhibit evidence of greater acquirements than 
we should expect him to have possessed? Does it presuppose exalted 
and extensive views, taste, and a classical style? With the exception 
of some Jewish reading, the tone of the whole of his history is that of 
an unlearned and artless narrative; there is exhibited a penury of lan- 
guage and an ignorance of its grammatical rules, and invariably the 
open, unpretending manner of an ordinary man, whose circumstances 
had learned him how to read and write. 

Now, how can we be justified in passing over the eye-witness, an 
eye-witness capable in every respect, and going without scruple beyond 
the original narrator, in order to provide a source for his narrative 
pte a itself and all its characteristics lies wholly in the region of 

ction + 


ᾧ 24. 


Still it is insisted that traces of such an earlier original Gospel are 
found, and that in the works of Justin Martyr.!_ As the citations of this 


1 J. Severin Vater has instituted a critical inquiry concerning the books pro- 
posed as the sources of our Gospels, in the following work: ‘“ De Evangeliis 
qué ante Evangelia canonica in usu ecclesiw Christiane fuisse dicuntur. Re- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 971 


father have thus become connected with the investigation in regard to 
the sources of the first three Gospels, we must consent to make a few 
remarks upon them. : 

Justin was in the habit of demonstrating the whole of Christianity 
from the Old Testament. In the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, whom 
he wishes to convert, New ‘Testament occurrences are pointed out by 
him in’ Moses and the prophets, as being all there foretold, and he then 
relates with freedom and in his own language the corresponding facts 
in the New Testament, for the purpose of comparison. But he could 
not proceed in this way in respect to the prophecies, the precise phra- 
seology of which was considered and treated by the Jew as of the ut- 
mest importance, and the signification of which he took infinite pains 
to discover. In the one case he had to adhere to the phraseology, 
while in the other he related the facts, independently of the particular 
language of the historian. 

His procedure is the same in his Larger Apology. He wishes to 
prove to the Roman people, that everything respecting Jesus and his 
fortunes was predicted in the prophets, and enters into protracted expla- 
nations in regard to these Jewish oracles. For he, as well as his pupil 
Tatian, entertained the idea that all the knowledge of Thales, Socra- 
tes, Plato, and other ancient philosophers, was only borrowed from 

Moses and the sacred books of the Jews ; and of this they both attempted 
to convince the Greeks and Romans in works written expressly for the 
purpose, the former in his loyos παραινετικὸς πρὸς “ λληνας, the lat- 
ter in an address entitled simply IJgoc “ λληνας, Whenever in the 
Apology of Justin the doctrines of Christianity and the history of its 
founder were mentioned, they were presented by him in his own style 
of narrative, without strict adherence to the phraseology of the histori- 
cal books, and frequently in a purer diction. 

We shall be completely convinced that he has taken great license in 
citing from the New Testament, if we compare with each other such 
passages as are twice quoted in his works. In the 17th chapter of 
the Dialogue with Trypho, he quotes thus: yeyyuntae .. . oval ὑμῖν 
γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί, ὅτε ἀποδεχατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσ- 
μον, καὶ τὸ πήγανον, τὴν δὲ ἀγάπην τοῦ ϑεοῦ καὶ τὴν κρίσιν οὐ κα- 
τανοεῖτε. Ἴαφοι κεχονιαμένοι, ἔξωϑεν φαινόμενον ὡραῖοι, ἔσωϑεν 
δὲ γέμοντες ὑστέων νεκρῶν. Kai τοῖς γρομματεῦσιν, οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμ- 
ματεῖς, ὅτε τὰς κλεῖς ἔχετε, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσϑε, καὶ τοὺς 
εἰσερχομένους κωλύετε, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί. Inthe same work, 112th chap- 
ter, he cites these words thus: ἔφη ὁ ἡμέτερος κύριος... τάφου 
κεκονιαμένοι, ELMDEY φαινόμενοι ὡραῖοι, καὶ ἔσωϑεν γέμοντες OOTEMY 
νεκρῶν, τὸ ἡδύοσμον ἀποδεχατοῦντες, τὴν δὲ καμηλον καταπίνοντες, 
τυφλοὶ ὁδηγοί. In the 85th chapter of this Dialogue he quotes thus: 
eines: ἀναστήσονται πολλοὶ τμευδόχρεστοι καὶ ψευδοαπόστολοει, 
καὶ πολλοὺς τῶν πιστῶν πλανήσουσε; but in the 82d chap. εἶπε. . . Ore 
ψευδοπροφῆται καὶ ψευδόχφεστοι πολλοὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου παρελεύ-- 
σονται, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσι. Inhis Larger Apology, 16th chapter, 
πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί MOL, κυριε “VOLE, οὐ τῷ OW ὀνόματι ἐφ ἀγομὲν καὶ ἐπίομεν. 


giomont. 1812.” 4to., to which I refer the rather because this learned man has re - 
viewed with acknowledged ability all those hypotheses which my plan would 
not permit me to notice. 

} 


372 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


καὶ δυνάμεις é ἐποιήσαμεν, καὶ τύτε ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐργά- 
ται τῆς ανομίας; and 1 in his Dialogue, chapter 76, καὶ πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί 
μοι, κύριε, κυρίες, ἐν τῷ σῷ ονύματι ἐφάγομεν, καὶ ἐπίομεν, καὶ προ-- 
ἐφετεύσαμεν καὶ ᾿δαιμόνεα ἐξεβάλομεν. Kui ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς" ἀποχωρεῖτε 
ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. In the Apology, chapter 15, καὶ τὸν ἥλιον αὑτοῦ ἀνατέλλει 
ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶς zal δικαίους καὶ πονηρούς; in his Dialogue, chapter 
96, the same passage, : τὸν τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλοντα é ἐπὶ ἀχαρίσ- 
τους χαὶ δικαίους, καὶ βοέχοντα ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ πονηρούς. In the 
Apology, chapter 16, χαὶ προσέλθοντος αὐτῷ τενος, καὶ εἴποντος, 
διδάσχαλε ἀγαϑὲ, ἀπε χρίνατο λέγων, οὐδεὶς ἀγαϑὸς, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ 
Θεὸς, ὦ ποιήσας τὰ πιάντα: in the Dialogue, chapter 101, λέχοντος 
αὐτῷ τινος, διδάσκαλε ἀγαΐ Ὁ Je, ἀπεκρίνατο, τί μὲ λέγεις ἀγαϑὸν, εἷς 
ἔστιν ἀγαϑὸς, 0 πατήρ μου, ὦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 

The passages here adduced are sufficient to prove that Justin did not 
maintain uniformity in all his works, nor even in the same work, in re- 
spect to his citations from the New Testament; that he only confined 
himself to the sense, often with very little anxiety about the expression, 
though introducing some individual words employed in the New Testa- 
ment; that he united together separate and distinct clauses, and ar- 
ranged them sometimes in one order and sometimes in another, accord- 
ing to his fancy or as best suited his purpose. 

‘Whoever desires to see a more extended example of his free style of 
narration may find one further on in the Appendix respecting the gen- 
uineness of the first two chapters of Matthew, § 74. 

Now it is certainly true, that if we bring together all such citations, 
with the supposition that they were made literally, and, when they 
are inconsistent with each other, overlook the circumstance, and per- 
haps consider those which evince most license as the true text, and, more- 
over, admit the assertion that they were all taken from a single book, 
and unite them together accordingly, we shall obtain in this way a book 
which bears resemblance sometimes to one and sometimes to another 
of .our first three Gospels, and is identical with neither. 

To this book, thus happily discovered, the priority is now boldly giv- 
en, and then it is clear that the citations of Justin, even when they 
agree literally with one of our Gospels, were not taken from them, but 
that of necessity our Evangelists borrowed from this earlier book or 
original Gospel those sentences and passages in which we sometimes 
find a substantial and even litera] agreement with Justin’s work. This 
is nearly the process by which this discovery has been attained; these 
are the strict critical principles by which its accuracy is placed beyond 
doubt. 

The passages before compared with each other may determine wheth- 
er we can acknowledge as correct the position on which the whole mat- 
ter rests, viz. that Justin has always cited his notices of the life of Je- 
sus in astrictly literal manner. What, therefore, is the fate of the whole 
series of conclusions deduced from this, needs no further elucidation. 

Here we might stop, and consider that we had done all which could 
be required of usin a polemical point of view ; yet some may perhaps de- 
sire a few further observations in addition to the requisite refutation. 

Justin calls the sources from which he derived the acts and doctrines 
of Jesus, cnouvyuovetiute,on account of a partiality for the term, 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 373 


which he acquired from the Platonic school to which he once belonged. 
He should, to be sure, have called them ἀπομνημονεύμωτα Χριστοῦ, as 
Xenophon’s ἀπομνημονεύματα obtained from the person who was the 
subject of the narrative the title ἀπομνημονεύματα «Σωκράτους. Jus- 
tin, however, derives their name from the writers who composed them, 
and calls them invariably ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. He ex- 
presses himself very clearly on this point in his Dialogue, chap. 88, ὡς 
περιστερὰν τὸ AYLOY πνξυμα ἑπίπτῆναν EM αὐὑτον, EYOUay οἱ ἀποσ- 
Tolos αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν. He here evidently recognises sev- 
eral authors. 

Instead of this expression he sometimes, moreover, uses the term 
Gospel in the singular number: it is written in the Gospel, and, as his 
opponent expresses himself in the Dialogue: in the so-called Gospel, év 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ yéyounta—év ww λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ. (chaps. 10 and 
100.) He probably, however, speaks in accordance with the custom of 
the fathers of the 2d and 3d centuries, who considered the works of 
the four Evangelists as only one Gospel; for though distinguished in- 
deed as respects their authors, they are not as to their subject, and hence 
are only ἕν evuyyéhvov διὰ τεττάρων OF ἃ τέετράμοφφον ευαγγέλιον ἐν 
ἑνὶ πνεύματε, quadriforme evangelium in uno spiritu etc. (Comp. Part 
I. § 47.) 

In another place he is still more clear on this point. In his Larger 
Apology he speaks of the Gospels in the plural number, (chap. 67.) 
oi ἀπόστολοι Ev τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασι, ἃ καλεῖ- 
ται εὐαγγέλεα, οὕτως παρέδωκαν. As the expression τὰ εὐαγγέλια, the 
Gospels, was never used in ancient or modern times in speaking of but 
one book, it is here decisive of the fact that Justin not only knew 
of several different writers, but of several different works with this t- 
tle. 

The expression, ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, occurs about 
fourteen times in Justin’s citations. On one occasion he uses a remark- 
able variation from this expression, where he mentions the change of 
Peter’s name and those of Zebedee’s children: “ this,” says he, “is 
written in his (i. 6. Peter’s) memoirs,” ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμαοεν αὐτοῦ. 
He had already spoken of Peter’s change of name, (Dial. ὁ. 100.) re- 
ferring simply to the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, in which it 
was related that Jesus gave Simon the surname of Peter, after he had 
acknowledged him to be the sonof God. When, however, he mentions 
the sons of Zebedee likewise, who were surnamed sons of thunder, he 
changes the form of citation and observes: this is stated in his (Peter's) 
memoirs, (Dial. c. 106.) 

He thus clearly distinguishes the memoirs of Peter from those of oth- 
er apostles, and, as we have already observed, (ἢ 14,) the account of 
the sons of thunder is to be found only in Mark, whose book, as far as 
respected those parts of the history which were peculiar to it alone, was 
referred by the ancients wholly to Peter. 

Among his citations there is another case in which he gives a particular 
explanation of his usual form of citation. He refers as usual to the 
ἀπομνημονεύματα, but extends the adjunct ἀποστόλων, which he al- 
ways subjoins, by saying that they were composed by the apostles and 
those éxsivous παρακολουϑησάντων, who were their companions in 


374 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


the business ofteaching: ἐν yao τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, & φημι ὑπὸ 
τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐχείνους παρακολουϑησάντων συν- 
τειάχϑαι, ὅτι Wows ὡσεὶ ϑρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο αὐτοῦ εὐχομένου x. τ. A. 
Now who were the παρακολουϑήσαντες᾽ On this point.we are not 
left in the dark : according to the ancients, Mark was the ἀκόλουθος, 
éounvevs, or sectator Petri, and Luke, likewise, an ἀχόλουϑος, comes, 
sectator apostoli. Thus what Justin says of the memoirs, that they 
were composed by apostles and their companions, exactly applies to our 
‘Gospels. ‘And it further deserves special notice, that in this passage in 
which Justin subjoins the explanation that the ἀπομνημονεύματα were 
not written by the apostles only, but by their companions likewise, he | 
cites from one of these companions, viz. Luke, the words: idew¢ ὡσεὶ 
ϑρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο αὐτοῦ εὐχομένου. (22: 44. Dial. c. 103.) 

These ἀπομνημονεύματα, then, were not by one individual ; they 
were several Gospels written by apostles and companions of apostles, as 
is the case withour own. When Justin mentions Peter’s memoirs, 
he quotes Mark; when he mentions the companions of the Apostles, in 
reference to these memoirs, he quotes a passage from Luke. Matthew 
we shall discover in his other citations. 

He in one place refers to his former declarations concerning the Lo- 
gos, of whom he often speaks, and says in his free manner that the 
only-begotten of the Father, the Logos who proceeded from him, after- 
wards became man, as we learn from the memoirs, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνη- 
μονευμάτων. The λόγος, the μονογενής, the ἄνϑρωπος γενόμενος is 


ΟῚ Dial.cum Tryph.c.1(5 Movoyevis γὰρ ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος, 
ἐδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γενόμενος, καὶ ὕστερον ἄνϑρωπος διὰ τῆς 
παρϑένουγενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνημονεύματων ἐμάϑομεν, προεδήλωσα. 
The question respecting Justin’s memoirs may be regarded as settled by the 
careful investigation of an estimable scholar, Geo. Ben. Winer in his Finla- 
dung ad orationem muneris adeundi causa. Erlang. 1219. ‘ Justinum M. Evan- 
geliis canonicis usum fuisse ostenditur.’” Appropriate remarks on this subject 
may be found in Dr. J. P. Myaster's work : ‘* Veber den Gebrauch unserer Evan- 
gelien in den Schrifien Justins des M. Koph. 1819. In this work, however, he 
does not confine himself to the Gospels, but shows that Justin made use of other 
writings of the New Testament, and among other cases, notwithstanding the free- 
dom of his manuer, we cun recognise 2 Thess. 2: 3. in Tryph. ch. 110. ὅταν καὶ 6 
τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἄνθρωπος xX. τ. Aes Coloss. 1. 15. πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 
Tryph. ch. 133, and Gal. 4: 12. 5: 20, 21. ad Gree. Orat. near the end.—Herm. 
Olshausen has in a general manner pointed out our Gospels in Justin’s citations 
in“ Die KEehtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien. Konigsb. 1823.” p. 286 
seq. Yet he has made too little account of Justin’s license in using the Gospels 
which is undeniably clear whenever he cites the same passage two or three 
times; and on the other hand he attributes too much to the corruption of Mss. 
[In supposing from the resemblance of a few expressions that Justin made use of 
the Jewish Gospel likewise, (p. 329,) he was preceded by Dr. Paulus in the 
‘‘ Theol. exeg. Conversatorium,’’ I. Lief., ‘‘ Uber die Enstehungsart der drey ers- 
ten Evangelien.” ‘“ Ob das Evangelium Justins des M. das Evangelium der He- 
braer gewesen sey.’’ Heide!b. 1822. p. 52 seq. Though I am forced to be very 
concise, it will be of use to clear up a passage in Justin from which inferences 
have been frequently made, but which is constantly misunderstood. The mis- 
take originates in the punctuation. At chapter 98 of the Dial. cum Tryph. 
Justin begins to comment on Psalm XXI, (Heb. Ps. XXII,) and proceeds verse 
by verse to explain the whole of Christ. In chap. 106 he comes to verse 23d : 
δηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν fe ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε; and his 
explanation of it extends from ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν (i. 6. τῶν ἀποστόλων;) as far as 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Sup 


described with sufficient distinctness in the Memoirs which we have 
by John. With this should be connected a passage to which Dr. 
Paulus and Dr. Mynster have referred. After Justin has in his 
manner conducted through some chapters an argument from the Old 
Testament against Trypho in respect to the existence of an ἐκ ϑεοῦ 
γεγενημένη ὀύναμις λογική, who is called Geos, κύριος, and λόγος, 
(ch. 61, and 62,) he asserts (ch. 63,) that his blood was not formed 
from the seed of men, τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνϑρωπείου σπέρματος 
---αλλ᾽ ἐκ ϑελήματος ϑεοῦ; in which we may recognise the words of 
John 1:13, though the application is forced. After thus deducing the 
original memoir: we can more easily recognise: καὶ υἱὸς, ὁ Aoyos— 
σαρκοποιηϑεὶς ἄνϑρωπος γέγονεν. (Larger Apol. ch. 82.) Ando λόγ- 
ο9---ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε. (Second Apol. ch. 6.) 

The fragment from the conversation with Nicodemus, (John 3: 3 seq. 
Larger Apol. ch. 61.) which was pointed out by Lardner, no one can 
fail to recognise, except intentionally. 


§ 25. 


We may then peaceably recur to our old position, viz. that Matthew 
was an original writer, and Mark copied from him; but the peculiar 
plan and purposes of the latter, and the mode in which he availed him- 
self of his predecessor’s work can be unfolded only in the progress of 
our investigation. They agree together in their selection of facts, for 
the most part likewise in their arrangement of them, in phraseology, 
and, moreover, in dividing all the acts of Jesus, related by them after 
his return from the temptation, into four journies which he took from 
the place of his abode into various regions, exclusive of his last journey 
to the place of his passion. 

We will try what information we can derive from a more extended 
consideration of these journies. 


First Journey. 


Matthew. Mark. 


I. Jesus enters the synagogue 
at Capernaum, and cures a man 
possessed with a devil. 

I. Jesus heals a leper with the 
injunction that he should tell no 
man. 
II. He is met by the Centurion, 
whose servant he heals. 
III. He enters Peter’s house. II. He enters Peter’s house. 


ΠῚ > . ᾿ 

οτε ἐσταυρώϑη. Then begins anew sentence in which he proves from the me- 
moirs that vv7jow os applies to Christ, for he sing with his disciples while he 
lived: καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν διάγων, ὕμνησε τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι . ; 
which is true; sce Matth. 26: 30, καὶ υἱμνησάντες ἐξῆλθον. Perhaps I may 
have occasion to speak further of Justin. 


376 


Matthew. 


IV. A certain scribe desires to 
follow Jesus, and is sent away. 

V. Jesus enters the country of 
the Gadarenes, heals two possess- 
ed with devils, and returns. 

*"Theev εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν. 
(Matth. 9: 1.) 


THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


‘Mark. 
III. He heals a leper with the 


injunction that he should tell no 


man. 


Πάλιν εἰσῆλϑεν sig Καπερναούμ. 


(Mark 2: 1.) % 


Second Journey. 


Matthew. 


I. Four men bring to Jesus one 
sick of the palsy. 

II. Jesus calls Matthew. 

III. The disciples of John fast ; 
those of Jesus do not. 

IV. Jesus heals the daughter of 
Jairus, and a woman who had an 
issue of blood. 

V. Jesus chooses himself disci- 
ples and sends them forth. 

VI.. John sends his disciples to 
inquire of Jesus. 

VII. Jesus goes through the 
corn with his disciples. 

Kai μεταβὰς ἐχεῖϑεν, ἤλϑεν εἰς 
τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν. 


(Matth. 12: 9.) 


Mark. 


_I. Four men bring to Jesus one 
sick of the palsy. 

II. Jesus calls Matthew. 

III. The disciples of John fast ; 
those of Jesus do not. 


IV. Jesus goes through the corn 
with his disciples. 
Καὶ εἰσῆλθε πάλιν εἰς τὴν συν- 
αγωγήν. 
(Mark 3: 1.) 


Tuirp Journey. 


Matthew. 


I. A man with a withered hand 
is healed. 


II. Jesus is said to heal through 
Beelzebub. 

III. The scribes and Pharisees 
require a sign. 

ΙΝ. The mother and brethren 
of Jesus arrive. 

V. Jesus teaches in parables. 


Mark. 


I. A man with a withered hand 
is healed. 

II. Jesus chooses himself disci- 
ples. 

III. He is said to heal through 
Beelzebub. 


IV. The mother and brethren of 
Jesus arrive. 

V. Jesus teaches in parables. 

VI. Jesus comes into the country 
of the Gadarenes, and heals one 
possessed with a devil. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 377 


Mark. 


VII. Jesus heals the daughter of 
Jairus, and the woman with the is- 
sue of blood. 

"710 ev εἰς τὴν πατρίδα. 


(Mark 6: 1.) 


Matthew. 


aS, ~ > ‘ ᾿ c ~ 
LdGowv εἰς τὴν nargida αὐτου. 


(Matth. 13: 54.) 


The difference between Mark and Matthew in these three Journeys, 
arises mostly from the different positions assigned by them to -the en- 
trance into the country of the Gadarenes; Matthew placing it at the 
close of the first excursion, and Mark at the close of thethird. If we 
take it out of its place in Matthew, and give it the position it has in 
Mark, and then set aside the events No. II and IV, which Mark has 
omitted to mention in any part of his book, the first Journey is the same 
in both. 

In the second Journey they coincide, except as respects the events 
Matth. IV, V, VI. ‘This difference, likewise, depends in part on the 
difference in regard to the voyage to Gadaris. For in both, the story 
of the daughter of Jairus is so placed, as to show that the incident oc- 
curred not long after this voyage. As Matthew places this at the end of 
the first, and Mark at the end of the third Journey, the event which 
took place not long after the voyage is likewise differently placed in 
both. Mark is wholly silent respecting the inquiry made by John’s dis- 


ciples. 


If now we remove No. V. in Matthew further along into the 


third journey, there is a perfect coincidence between the two writers. 


Fourts Journey. 


Matthew. 


I. The prophet is without honor 
in his own country. 


II. Herod believes that John has 
risen from the dead. 


III.’ Five thousand are fed. 

IV. Jesus walks on the sea, ap- 
pears upon it to the apostles, and 
goes to Gennesaret. 

V. The disciples of Jesus eat 
with unwashen hands. 

VI. Jesus goes into the region 
of Tyre: story of the woman of 
Canaan. 

VII. Four thousand are fed. 

VIII. A sign is demanded of 
Jesus. 

IX. The apostles forget to take 
bread with them. 

48 


Mark. 


I. The prophet is without honor 
in his own country. 

II. Jesus sends forth his disci- 
ples. 

III. Herod believes that John 
has risen from the dead. 

IV. The disciples of Jesus re- 
turn from their mission. 

V. Five thousand are fed. 

VI. Jesus walks on the sea, ap- 
pears upon it to the apostles, and 
goes to Gennesaret. 

VII. The disciples of Jesus eat 
with unwashen hands. 

VIII. Jesus goes into the region 
of Tyre: story of the woman of 
Canaan. 

IX. Four thousand are fed. 

X. A sign is demanded of Je- 
sus. 

XI. The apostles forget to take 
bread with them. 


378 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Matthew. Mark. 


XII. A blind man is brought to 
Jesus at Bethsaida. 
X. Jesus asks: Whom do men XIII. Jesus asks: Whom do 


say that I am? men say that I am? 
XI. Transfiguration on the XIV. Transfiguration on the 
mount. mount. 
XII. The apostles cannot heala XV. The apostles cannot heal ἃ 
man possessed οὔ ἃ devil. man possessed of a devil. 
᾿Ελϑόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς απερνα- Kai ἦλϑεν εἷς Καπερναούμ. 
oun. (Matthew 17: 24.) (Mark 9: 33.) 


In this Journey Mark varies from Matthew in separating the sending 
away of the disciples from their election, with which it is connected by 
Matthew, as represented in No. V. of the second Journey. Mark 
makes the former an independent event, and then after an interval in- 
forms us particularly of their return and what they had done. Indeed 
Matthew seems to have connected these events more on account of their 
relationship, than from regard to chronological order. 

Matthew, moreover, has twice related the fact that certain persons 
desired of Jesus a sign, here and in the third Journey No. III. Mark 
has omitted it the first time and mentioned it only here. The event 
No. XII in Mark, is peculiar to him, not being found anywhere in 
Matthew. 

Such is their coincidence up to the history of the passion, which be- 
gins at this point in both books. When Jesus departed from Caperna- 
um the next time, he went to meet his death. 


§ 26. 


Now why did Mark treat the order of events in his predecessor’s 
work with so much freedom, and in several instances follow a different 


arrangement? There must have been an object and reason for this pro- | 


cedure, for it could only have been from design that an occurrence was 
removed from its position and placed in a different connexion. 

How, e. g., could it happen that he should have disjoined and distin- 
guished as two separate occurrences the selection of the apostles and 
their being sent forth into the world, presenting the latter in a totally 
different connexion, although they are united in Matthew, unless for the 
sake of observing their natural order and arranging them as they actu- 
ally took place? 

He was still more precise: a part of the discourse, which, according 
to Matthew, Jesus then made to his disciples, he separates from the rest, 
and does not introduce till the time when Jesus, before his death, dis- 
closes to his disciples their future fate. ‘The passage alluded tois the 
following : 


Oe 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 379 


Matth. X. 19 seq. Mark XIII. 11 seq. 
Ὅταν δὲ παραδιδῶσιν ὑμᾶς, Ὅταν δὲ ἃ ἀγάγωσιν ὑμᾶς 
ΐ “παραδιδόντες, 
μὴ μεριμνήσητε μὴ προμεριμνᾶτϑ 
πῶς ἢ τὶ λαλήσητε" ti λαλήσητε, 
δοϑήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν μηδὲ μελετᾶτε" ἀλλ ὃ ἐὰν δοϑῇ ὑμῖν 
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, 
Ti λαλήσετε" τοῦτο λαλεῖτε " 
οὗ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε of λαλοῦντες, οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑμεῖς οἵ λαλοῦντες, 
ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς . ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. 
ὑμῶν, 
τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν. 
παραδώσει δὲ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν Παραδώσει δὲ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν 
εἰς ϑάνατον, εἰς ϑάνατον, 
καὶ πατὴρ TEXVOY " καὶ πατὴρ τέκνον * 
καὶ ἐπαναστήσονταιν τέκνα καὶ ἐπαναστήσονται τέχνα 
ἐπὶ γονεῖς ἐπὶ γονεῖς 
καὶ ϑανατώσουσιν αὐτούς. καὶ ϑανατώσουσιν αὑτούς" 
Καὶ ἔσεσϑε μισούμενοι καὶ ἔσεσϑε μισούμενοι 
ὑπὸ πάντων, διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου" ὑπὸ πάντων, διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου" 
6 δὲύυ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος, 6 δὲ ὁ ᾧπομείνας εἰς τέλος, 
οὗτος σωϑήσεται. οὗτος σωϑήσεται. 


We see that the discourse is the same in both, and the phraseology 
almost entirely. Now what could have induced Mark to take these 
words from their connexion in Matthew and place them elsewhere, ex- 
cept the intention of giving them their proper chronological position ? 
Considering their purport, they certainly stand in a more appropriate 

connexion in Mark than in Matthew. 

Mark has taken single sentences from the sermon on ae mount as | 
given in Matthew and connected them with other occasions, events and 
discourses; 6. g. Matth. 6: 14. Mark 11: 25, 26. Matth. 5: 15. Mark 
4:21. Matth. 5: 13. Mark 9:59. Matth.7:2. Mark 4:24. This at- 
tention and care in giving single sentences of this sermon: another sit- 
uation, cannot be better explained than by supposing him to have aim- Ὁ 
ed at relating every thing in the order in which it occurred, while, on 
the contrary, Matthew has given at the outset of Jesus’ ministry ina 
systematic form and at one view what our Lord may have uttered on the | 
most various occasions. 

This purpose of our author is clearly manifest in the case of the voyage 
to Gadaris, as well as other cases. Matthew mentions this at the 
end of the first Journey, while by Mark it is removed along to the 
end of the third. The latter affixes to the occurrence a definite deter- 
mination of time, which makes it clear that he designed to adhere to 
the chronological order. Jesus taught by the sea-shore in parables, 
and a great multitude surrounded him. (Mark 4: 1.) After the con- 
clusion of this discourse in parables, he adds (Mark 4: 35,) that the 
passage over to Gadaris took place ἐν ἐχείνῃ τῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ὀψίας γένομ- 
ἑνης, at evening on the same day. Now it is true that the expression 
ἐν ἐκείνη τη ἡμέρᾳ in the Evangelists is indefinite, but the annexed no- 


_ 380 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


tice of the particular part of the day, oyu, shows that we are to take 
the passage as an accurate designation of time. The circumstance 
that Jesus was withdrawn from the multitude and carried over ina ship 
(4: 36,) proves the connexion of the passage across with the event im- 
mediately preceding, viz. the instruction given by Jesus in parables to 
the multitude by the sea-side. 

In the second Journey, after the voyage to Gadaris, Matthew narrates 
without any definite designation of time, (when he has related a few 
other occurrences,) the cure of the daughter of Jairus and the woman 
with the issue of blood. (9: 18.) Mark, who refers them to the close 
of the third excursion, designates with precision the time when they oc- 
curred and their connexion, asserting that they occurred directly after 
the voyage to Gadaris, by saying that the father of the child came 
to Jesus when they had landed on their return, etc. (5: 21, 22.) 

We hence perceive that he took the actual succession of things as his 
guide in the plan of his history, and distributed events according to 
their chronological order. 


§ 27. 


Moreover, he differs from his predecessor in his mode of representing 
occurrences; he is almost always more copious as to the particular cir- 
cumstances attending each event. From this exactness and attention 
to minute points his narrative is more complete and vivid. E. g. Mat- 
thew relates the story of the woman who had an issue of blood, rather 
in the style of a summary than of a regular narrative: “A woman 
which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind - 
him and touched the hem of his garment; for she said within herself, 
If IT may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned 
him about ; and, when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort ; 
thy faith hath made thee whole.” Mark, on the contrary, takes note of 
the minutest circumstances. He was better acquainted with the condi- 
tion and wretchedness of the diseased woman. During twelve years 
all the art of physicians had been exerted for her relief to no purpose, 
she had wasted all her substance, and her sufferings were evidently in- 
creasing ; which latter circumstance essentially enhances the wonder, as 
well as the beneficence, of so speedy a cure. She heard of Jesus, and, 
approaching him behind in the crowd, touched his garment, fully con- 


* vinced that she should be healed. Our Lord, perceiving that virtue had 


gone out of him, turned about and said: “* Who touched my clothes ?” 
The disciples replied, affirming the impossibility of determining when 
there was such a press of people. But Jesus merely looked around, and his 
glance fell on the woman, who felt already what was done in her, and 
immediately threw herself with fear and trembling at Jesus’ feet, and told 
all as it happened. Jesus said unto her: ‘‘ Daughter, thy faith hath 
made thee whole.” 

It is so in a greater or less degree in regard to most of the occur- 
rences related ; not that they are paraphrased, but clothed with the 
particular circumstances under which they occurred; e. g. Mark 1: 40 
—end. Matth. 8: 2—5. Mark 2: 2—13. Matth. 9: 2—9. Mark 4:35 —end. 
Matth. 8: 23—28. Mark 5: 1—20. Matth. 8: 28—end. Mark 6: 14—30. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 381 


Matth. 14: 6—13. Mark 12: 28—35. Matth. 22: 34—41, and many oth- 
er passages. 

The knowledge he possesses in regard to the persons mentioned in 
the history and their circumstances is worthy of notice. While Mat- .,~ 
thew (9: 18) speaks only of an ἄρχων, his name, Jairus, is given in 
Mark (5: 22) together with his office, εἷς τῶν ἀρχεσυναγώγων. When 
Matthew (15: 22) mentions generally a γυνὴ) Χαναναία, Mark tells us 
more particularly ἦν δὲ ἡ γυνὴ “LdAnvic, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει (7: 
26.) Matthew (27: 16) designates Barabbas simply as δέσμεον ἐπίση- 
μον; Mark (15:7) knew what was his crime, ἕν τῇ oraose φόνον. 
The former tells us merely of a Cyrenian, Simon by name (27: 32;) 
while Mark informs us that it was Simon, a Cyrentan, the father of 
Alexander and Rufus (15: 21.) The one speaks (27: 57) of a rich 
man, Joseph of Arimathea; the other knew that he was a distinguish- 
ed member of the council (15: 483—45,) and was acquainted with what 
passed between him and Pilate, and the inquiry made of the centurion 
by the Pretor. -Concerning Mary of Magdalene, he adds the circum- 
stance (16: 9) ag’ ἧς ἐχβεβλήκευ ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. A case of the same 
kind, as we shall sce directly, occurs in 10: 46, respecting the blind 
man in the road near Jericho. We will add one more example of the 
minute circumstances stated by Mark: according to Matth. 16: 5, the 
disciples had forgotten to take bread withthem ; yet Mark says (8: 14) 
they had one loaf with them in the ship. It is remarkable, too, that in 
narrating the occurrence at Gadaris, he observes (5: 13) that there 
were about two thousand swine. 

He did not then copy Matthew’s book, but made use of it as the ba- 
sis of his own; conferred greater particularity on Matthew’s narrative, 
(which frequently presents only the outline of an occurrence, neglecting 
circumstantial detail,) and moulded his predecessor’s sketches into the 
form of complete history. He is not, as some have repewed from Au- 
gustine, the epitomist, but the reviser of Matthew; and sometimes his 
revision is so rigid that he seems positively to contradict him. 

Matthew mentions two demoniacs at Gadaris, while Mark (5: 2 seq.) 
speaks of but one. While Matthew (20: 30) speaks of two blind men 
healed on the road to Jericho, Mark tells us of but one (10: 46 ;) and 
that the narrative of both has reference to the same event is clear as 
well from the time, as from the similarity of the circumstances and 
phraseology. In this last case, Mark even sustains his statement in a+ 
striking manner, by subjoining something from which it is clear that 
he was perfectly well informed in regard to the incident; for the 
name of the man who was healed is stated by him in two langua- 
ges, the Greek and the Syriac: υἱὸς 7iuatov, Βαρτίμαιος ὦ τυφλός. 

These cases would be indeed real contradictions, if we did not know 
the aim of Matthew; but when this is considered, they only evince in- 
difference as to things not connected with his purpose. (ὁ 4.) He wish- 
ed merely to show from the acts of Jesus that he was the Messiah, and ν΄ 
a perfectly accurate chronology was not even consistent with his plan. 
Minuteness, too, was of no importance to his object. The outline of 
an event was enough for his argument; and hence he proceeds in so 
summary a manner that it is evident he did not wish to trouble himself 
about minute circumstances. This does not prove any deficiency in 


= 


» 


382 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


point of ability or in point of uprightness and love of truth; and only 
the want of one or the other of these characteristics, and not a mere in- 
difference as to matters that do not concern his proposed plan, can brand 
a writer with error and dishonesty. 


§ 98, 


The person who is designated by history as Mark’s voucher and 
source of information, and by whose assistance he has furnished us with 
so many new and important observations on Matthew, is prominently in- 
dicated as such in his work. On occasion of the first alteration which 
he makes in the arrangement of certain acts of our Lord, when he ex- 
cludes from its position the story of the centurion, and places an incident 
previously mentioned by Matthew, viz. the cure of the leper, after the 
visit to Peter’s house, he informs us just before this last occurrence that 
Simon was there with Jesus (Mark 1: 36,) xai κατεδίωξαν αὐτὸν 0 
Σίμων καὶ oi wet αὐτοῦ. Again, in giving a considerably extended ac- 
count of the cure of the daughter of Jairus, he expressly adds the cir- 
cumstance that Jesus admitted only Peter, John and James as witnesses of 
the whole occurrence. (5: 37.) Matthew (21: 18 seq.) relates the story of 
the withered fig-tree ; Mark (11: 12—15 and 20—27) gives it to us more 
in detail, and connects some moral instruction with it, particularly a pas- 
sage from the sermon on the mount. (Matt. 6: 14, 15.) He seems here, 
too, to substantiate. his account by exhibiting Peter, respecting whom 
Matthew is silent, as the occasion of the dialogue and the instruction 
annexed. Mark (13: 3) expressly names Peter as one of the persons 
engaged in the conversation concerning the final fate of the temple and 
Holy City, while Matthew (24: 3) only mentions it generally without 
specifying either of the persons concerned in it. Matthew (28: 10) tells 
us of the command to the women to carry the news of the resurrection 
to the disciples; Mark (16: 7) expressly adds the name of Peter: 
τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ. 

Such care to insert Peter’s name in particular passages, where it was 
neither required by the circumstances of the event, nor any light was 
thereby thrown upon the event in itself considered, as in Mark 1: 36. 
5: 37. 18: 3. 16: 7, denotes a peculiar motive in the writer’s mind. The 
invariable presence of this apostle, and the mention of him purposely 
avhen it contributed nothing to illustrate the narrative, can be intended 
only to accredit it by his authority. At all events, Mark’s anxiety to 
add Peter’s name, without any necessity in reference to the circum- 
stantiality or perspicuity of the occurrence, is perfectly explained by the 
accounts of the ancients concerning Mark’s authority ; and these tra- 
ces in the book agree so well with the accounts as to favor and enhance 
their claim to credit. 


§ 29. 


Although in general Mark has carried out Matthew’s history into 
more minute and exact detail than Matthew, yet in some cases he has 
done the contrary, and condensed Matthew’s narrative, sometimes even 
retaining in part the same language. 


Ὡ ἄν ω» wl 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 383 


Matth. 10: 11 seq. Mark 6: 10 seq. 
By ‘ 
Εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν “Ὅπου ἐὰν 
πόλιν ἢ κώμην 
εἰςέλϑητε, εἰσέλϑητε 
de , Ata 2 ef , 9 " > > + 
ἐξετάσατε, τίς ἐν αὐτῇ ἄξιός ἐστι εἰς οἰκίαν, 
HOKEL μείνατε, ἐκεῖ μένετε 
ἕως ἂν ἐξέλϑητε. ἕως ἂν ἐξέλϑητε 
> , A ὦ ‘ >? 2 ~ 
Εἰσερχόμενοι δὲ sig τὴν οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖϑεν. 


> ΄ >) lp - XV 31 ‘ 
ἀσπάσασϑε avin. Kot ἐὰν μὲν 
awe talc Der 
ἢ ἢ οἰκία ἀξία, . . . κὶ τ. A 


Καὶ ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς, Καὶ ὅσοι ἂν μὴ δέξωνται ὑμᾶς 
μηδὲ ἀκούσῃ μηδὲ ἀκούσωσιν 
τοὺς λόγους 
c ~ c - 
ὑμῶν, ὑμῶν, 
ἐξερχόμενοι ἐκπορευόμενοι 
τῆς οἰκίας ἢ τῆς πόλεως 
ἐκείγης, ἐχεῖϑεν, 
ἐχτινάξατε τὸν κονιορτὸν ᾿ ἐκτινάξατε τὸν χοῦν 
τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν. | τὸν ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν. 


The reason is most probably this, that at times Mark, who usually is ., 
more circumstantial in his narrative, did not consider it necessary, or 
was unable, to add any thing to the account. In such a case it was su- 
perfluous to transcribe into his book at length narratives which were 
sufficiently minute in that of his predecessor ; and he therefore content- 
ed himself with a concise statement, supposing his readers to be acquaint- 
ed with the more detailed account. 

Perhaps the minuteness of some relations, which left no room for ad- 
dition on the part of Matthew’s reviser, was the reason why he entirely 
omitted certain occurrences (e. g. Matth. 8: 5—13. 19—21. 11: 1 seq. ;) 
but more probably this is to be laid to the account of the voucher of 
his narratives, who did not allow to some occurrences the position which 
they occupy in Matthew, and did notin the sequel assign them the place 
which chronologically belonged to them. In fact subsequent investiga- 
tions will show, that they really occurred in such chronological circum- 
stances as would properly give them a different historical position. 


§ 30. 


We find but few entirely new events, unmentioned by Matthew, and , _ 
consequently peculiar to Mark; perhaps there are three in all. One pos Fl 
falls at the commencement of Jesus’ ministry. (Mark 1:23.) A de- 
moniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, acknowledges the superior 
power dwelling in Jesus, and is healed. The others occurred shortly 
before the passion. A blind man is brought to Jesus at Bethsaida, and 
is restored to sight by his spittle and the laying on of his hands. (Mark 
8:22—27) The last isthe account of the poor woman who cast two 
lepta into the treasury. (Mark 12: 41—44.) 

This fact, likewise, assures us that it was not his purpose to give an 
independent historical book, for the preparation of which he himself 


984 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


could not have been deficient in materials, and his voucher still less in 
abundant knowledge; but that his plan was confined to a revision of 
the existing work of Matthew. 


§ 31. 


The result of our investigations as tothe mutual relation of the two Evan- 
gelists may be briefly presented as follows: Matthew is an original writer, 
as he was qualified to be, from having been an eye-witness of the oc- 
currences narrated, a friend of the Teacher of whom he writes, and 
one to whom his future plans were intrusted. This work first saw the 
light. On account of the object he had in view, he was not anxious 
about the chronological arrangement of events, and, although he did 
not always neglect it, he yet often designedly presented together, in one 
view, certain discourses and actions which he found most suited to his 
particular purpose. Hence arose frequently a different order from the 
historical one. ‘To detail the particular circumstances of each event 
would not have been subsidiary to his purpose, would have been super- 
fluous, and often inconvenient. The incidental considerations present- 
ed by an extended narrative, would have diverted the reader from his 
main object, and distracted the attention which he wished to be direct- 
ed toa single point, viz. the perception of the fact, that the predictions 
of the ancients concerning the Messiah were fulfilled in the life of Je- 
sus. Matthew is an historical deduction ; Mark is history. 

The contents of the latter are not, in general, new. We very seldom 
find in him narratives untouched by his predecessor. He composed 
his history from the materials furnished him by the latter, which are 
the basis of his production; and he aimed only at the merit of greater 
minuteness and accuracy. It was now specially incumbent on him to 
follow historical order, from which his predecessor had often deviated on 
account of his didactic aim. Then, too, exact historical representation 
was his duty ; he could not be so careless and indifferent as to the de- 
tail of particular circumstances and incidental matters which would im- 
part perspicuity or vividness to the occurrences narrated. ‘These obli- 
gations he fulfilled by means of the information he received from one 
of the earliest and most beloved disciples of Jesus. On the other hand, 
when the narrative of his predecessor made further detail unnecessary 
or impracticable, he became concise, and the reader was from the nature 
of the case referred to the previous history. Some events he wholly pas- 
sed over; probably because his authority left him in uncertainty as to 
their true historical position. Mark’s production may be regarded 
both.as a history and a critical treatise. 


§ 32. 


Further ; as it is necessary that such minute circumstances and such 

a number of accessary observations, even when ascertained and accu- 
rately taken from the mouth of eye-witnesses, should have been immedi- 
_ately noted down, and preserved in writing in order to prevent their be- 
ing lost or confounded in the mind; and as, moreover, the circumstan- 
ces of Mark’s life, the attestation of history and internal evidence in 


—s—— ss Llc 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 385 


the production itself designate Peter as the source of the peculiar infor- 
mation and the particularity of narrative which we find in this Gospel, 
there can be no doubt of the correctness of the assertion made by the 
ancients that Mark noted down in writing the public discourses of Pe- 
ter, and has communicated their contents to us; and I conceive the 
origin of Mark’s Gospel to have been as follows : 

The Gospel of Matthew having been published, while the apostles 
were teaching at Rome, (§ 16) this first biographical account of their 
exalted Master was carried thither to them, through the agency of Mat- 
thew himself perhaps, or that of others. From the novelty of the thing 
and its importance in respect to the condition and prospects of Chris- 
tianity in Paléstine, this would happen very speedily through the many 
messengers who came to them from zealous churches, or the Jews who 
left their country on account of the war,! and through the active com- 
munication which, on the same account, was kept up between Rome 
and Judea. For the commen benefit of believers it was read in their 
assemblies, and Peter, who was peculiarly qualified for the purpose, ex- 
plained and commented on it. Mark availed himself of these explana- 
tions and secured them by written notes, in which he was assisted by 
his close intimacy with the apostle. The expositions of the work of 
an eye-witness given by one who was himself an eye-witness of the 
acts of Jesus, and a coadjutor or companion in them, were of extraor- 
dinary value for the confirmation and instruction of believers, and they 
requested Mark to make his notes of general advantage and present them 
in a separate work. Hence his Gospel was called χήρυξες Πέτρου, the 
preaching of Peter, and he himself Peter’s interpreter. 

These relations between the voucher and the historian explain the 
reason why he has been still more concise than Matthew in relating 
certain occurrences in which Peter bore a part, when we might expect 
him to be more copious; 6. g. Matth. 14: 28—282. 16: 15—20. For 
any parts of the narrative which respected Peter personally, and of 
which he was the principal subject, would naturally be concisely treated 
and rapidly passed over by himin his discourses. His modesty led him 
to comment very little on himself and his actions, and at the mention of 
his frailties he could not suppress the embarrassment and shaine of a 
virtuous mind.” | 

In conclusion, we will endeavor to ascertain definitely the precise 
time at which these occurrences probably took place. When Nero 
went to amuse himself in Achaia with his disgraceful pursuits, Vespa- 
sian accompanied him thither. Meanwhile the rebellion broke out in 
oppressed Palestine, and Vespasian obtained commission to chastise that 
country.” It was still winter when Nero sailed to Rome, Titus to Al- 


1 These emigrations had already commenced, under Albinus, before the rebel- 
lion broke out. Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. 11. Ed. Havere. c. 14. n. 2. and Ed. Basil. 
c. 24. p. 738. and Antiq. L. XX. ο. ult. 

2 What Eusebius says (Demonsty. Evang. L. 111. p. 78, 79. Ed. Rob. Steph.) 
in comparing Matth. 16: 15-20, with Mark 8: 29, 30, deserves to be noticed. 7σού-- 
τῶν εἰρημένων τῷ Πέτρῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ’Inoov, ὁ Mdguos μηδὲν τούτων μνημονεύσας, 
ὅτε μηδ᾽ ὃ Πέτρος ταῦϑ', ὡς εἰκὸς, ἐν ταῖς αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίαις ἐξηγόρευσεν . . . 
διὸ καὶ Mdgxos αὐτὰ παρέλιπεν. “ὡς 
3 Saeton, in Vespas. c. 4. Bell. Jud. 1.. IIL. c. 1 


386 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


exandria, and Vespasian hastened over the Hellespont to Syria.! When 
the weather had moderated so that the campaign could be opened, Ves- 
pasian led his legions into Galilee, took several places, and invested 
Jotapata on the 2ist of Artemisius, our May.? In the month Panemus 
(July,) in the thirteenth year of Nero, this place was taken ;° this event 
was followed in Gorpizus (September) by the taking of Tarichea; in 
Hyperbereteus (October,) of Gamala; and after Gischala had surren- 
dered no fortified place remained; all Galilee was laid waste and sub- 
jugated.* 

The rebellion only raged the more furiously on this account in Judea 
and its metropolis ; the scenes connected with the _Idumzans followed ; 
the massacre in the temple and the murder of Zacharias.2 While 
these events were taking place, Matthew finished his Gospel ; i. e. in 
the winter which began the 14th year of Nero, or, as the year of Ne- 
ro’s reign began about three months before the year of the Christian era, 
(see close of § 84 in this Part,) about the end of the 68th year after the 
birth of our Lord. 

During the winter the Romans were at rest; but at the opening of 
_ spring Vespasian marched through Antipatris, Lydda and Jamnia, as 
far as Emmaus, and then to Jericho, where he formed a junction with . 
the army which had proceeded on the eastern side of the Jordan under 
the command of Trajan. The inhabitants of Jericho fled to the moun- 
tains.© At the commencement of the campaign in the spring the sea 
was broken up, and the usual routes of communication with Rome were 
re-opened. The Gospel of Matthew, the first historical work which ap- 
peared relative to the fate, acts, and doctrines of the founder of the Chris- 
tian sect, reached the capital of the world as a curiosity, and was read 
and expounded in the Christian assemblies. Sometime afterwards 
Nero died, in the month of June. For he ascended the throne in Oc- 
tober, and occupied it thirteen years and eight months.’ That he died 
in summer, we learn from Plutarch: “ It was summer” says he, “ when 
a courier with incredible despatch carried from Rome to Galba in 
Spain in seven days the intelligence of Nero’s death.’® The new 
emperor put himself in motion with a part of his army ; his march, how- 
ever, was slow and bloody.? During this time the city was in the 
hands of Nymphidius Sabinus and Tigellinus, till the latter was forced 
to lay down his arms. It was under these, ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, if we. 


1 Dio Cass. L. LXIII. p. 723. Wechel. Jos. Bell. Jud. L. ΠΙ. c. 4. n. 2. 
2 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. Ill. c. 7. n. 3. 

3 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 7. n. 36. 

4 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. IlI.c.10.n.10.L.1V.c. 1. n. 10. α. 2. 

5 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. IV. c. 5 and 6. 

6 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. IV. c. 8. n. 1, 2. 


7 Aurel. Vict. Epit. c. 5, says “‘annis tredecim.”’ Eutrop. L. VII. ο. 15. “ im- 
perii decimo quarto obiit.” Tacit. Hist. 1. ο. 5. iannos quatuordecim.” Sue- 
ton. Ner. c. 40. “ Paulo minus quatuordecim annis.” Dio L. LXIII. p.727.— 
ἔτη δεκατρία καὶ μῆνας ὀκτώ. Jos. B. J. L.1V.c. 9. n. 2. τρεῖς καὶ δέκα βασιλεύσας 
ἔτη καὶ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ. He has confounded μῆνας ὀκτῶ with ἡμέρας ὀκτώ. 

, 8. Plutarch in Galba,c. 7. "Hy δὲ ϑέρος ἤδη, καὶ βραχὺ πρὸ δείλης ἧκεν ἀπὸ 
Ῥώμης Σικηλὸς ἀνήρ ἀπελεύθερος ἑβδομαῖος. x. τ. λ. 
9 Tacit. Hist. L. I. ο. 6. 


ἡ eee 


23a = ---- ὩΝροὉΣΣ ἫΝ 


il a oe aa 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 387 


understand aright the language of Clemens Romanus as to this event, 
that Peter and Paul were executed, i. e. between the last days of Nero 
and Galba’s arrival. See in the sequel (ὃ 84,) what is said on the 
chronology of the Acts, immediately before the table. After their death, 
as we have before shewn (ὃ 16,) Mark published his Gospel. The 
words, after their death, are not definite enough to enable us to fix on 
any particular year. I therefore discard the date which I assigned in 
the former editions. 


LUKE. 


§ 33. 


Luke does not commence his Gospel in the genuine Jewish manner, 
with the narrative itself, but opens it according to the taste of the 
Greeks and Romans, with a Prowmium, in which he informs us of his 
intentions and motives, and of the writings already in existence relative 
to his subject. 

The correct interpretation of this introduction would destroy or cor- 
roborate many hypotheses; but unfortunately, it is of such a nature 
that, though no doubt he to whom it was addressed understood it, we, 
en the contrary, to whom the circumstances of that period have become 
obscure, find great difficulty in extracting its meaning. It has not 
escaped learned men what light it would cast on the history of the ori- 
gin of our first three Gospels; and hence they have laid peculiar stress on 
one clause or another which appeared to them to elucidate the origin 
of these books.! 

This introduction is contained in a sentence comprising four mem- 
bers. The second clause of the sentence is to be kept distinct from 
the third. “Adofe καμοὶ is what the Greek grammarians call an apodo- 
sis, which from its nature commences another series of clauses, and oc- 
curs only after a protasis has been concluded. The parts of the latter, 
therefore, are disjoined from the former, and each has its appointed 
limits. Luke begins with ἔδοξε καμοί to speak of himself, and what 
precedes is separated from what he says of himself in such a way as to 
show that it has no reference to him. If xa0w¢ παρέδοσαν were to be 
referred down to ἔδοξε καμοί, and did actually relate to himself, it must 
have been, according to true grammatical construction, disposed under 
the latter clause, and the order of the clauses must have been as fol- 
lows: ”Z0oks xguol παρηχολουϑηκότι ἄνωϑεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, κα- 
ϑὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. . . . καϑεξῆς σοι 
γράψαι. Now this is not the case; hence χαϑως παρέδοσαν is con- 
nected with what precedes, and is, like that, of a general nature; while 


1 On this Prologue, as the introduction is likewise called, and the peculiar in- 
terpretation which is given of it, is based the following essay: ‘ Einige Ideen 
ueber den wahrscheinlichen Ursprang unserer drey erstern Evangelien,”’ b 
Dr. Ziegler, in Gabler’s “ Neuem theol. Journal.’”’ 1800. 5th St. The following 
one, likewise, in part: “‘ Ueber die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien,” by 
Dr. Vogel, in Gabler’s “ Journal fiir auserles. theol. Litt.” 1804. 1 Bd. 1 St. 


388 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


what follows ἔδοξε xeuor refers particularly to Luke. The sentence 
contains, therefore, two parts, one general and the other particular. 

The first clause of the first part has adeterminate meaning, and 
asserts that many had composed histories of our Lord. ‘The next clause 
expresses a comparison with the first: such as those who were eye-wit- 
nesses have delivered to us, one would suppose. But the words χαϑοὶς 
παρέδοσαν are susceptible of another signification. 

Παραδιδόναι signifies literally, to give any thing into one’s hands, to 
deliver, to communicate; in a figurative sense, fo communicate some- 
thing orally, as knowledge, instruction, ete. Whichever be the mean- 
ing here, we must suppose the ellipsis ‘of dunynow or tacitly bring it 
down from the first clause. With the first sense of the word the pas- 
sage would run thus: Forasmuch as many have undertaken to com- 
pose a history of the events which arenotorious among us ; such as they 
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word 
have delivered into our hands; I also thought myself authorised, etc. 
With the latter signification of the word it must be translated as follows: 
Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compose.a history of the events 
which are notorious among us, according as they who from the begin- 
ning were eye-wiinesses . . . . have orally communicated them to us ; 
ἢ also thought myself authorised, etc. 

Now which of these interpretations is the correct one? If we dis- 
card for a moment the doubtful words, the purport of the introduction 
will be simply this: As many had written, he considered himself also 
as capable of writing, and intended, as he afterwards says, to bring the 
truth to light, τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. Restoring the clause which we discard- 
ed for a moment, and taking its sense to be: As eye-witnesses and au- 
thorised teachers have orally represented them, the chain of thought 
would be this: Inasmuch as many have written just as the apostles have 
orally represented the history, 1 considered myself as qualified for the 
task, and intend to ascertain the truth. Who would not be scandalised 
that Luke should promise something more certain than the apostles had 
communicated, whose representations had been reduced to writing by the 
many of whom he speaks? If now we must exonerate our author of so 
arrogant and inconsiderate an expression, the other sense must be the 
true one: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose historical books, 
such as the apostles have put into our hands, 1 considered myself, too, 
as capable, etc. Thus the import of the whole sentence is essentially al- 
tered, and it contains, if not an exculpation, at least a justification, 
afforded him by the example of the many who attempted, even after the 
apostles had published histories of our Lord, to compose similar works ; 
whence it was proper for him, particularly as his preparations had put 
him in a condition to do so, to write something more to be depended on 
than their accounts. 

The other interpretation: Inasmuch as many have attempted to com- 
pose histories as eye-witnesses have orally represented the occurrences, 
is open also to the objection of proceeding on the supposition, that be- 
fore the appearance of any historical work on the life and actions of our 
Lord, his history was detailed by the apostles in religious assemblies in 
so particular and methodical amanner, that narratives could be formed 
from written notes of their discourses. But this was not the custom of 


—————=— CCC  ὙὙΨνΥυ-ΨΚἍΜὝἌἊΨ 


i ΨΥ i i 


Po el 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 389 


the apostles. So far as their preaching was historical, it related only to 
the principal points in the history, to the sufferings and death of our 
Lord, and to the pillar of the whole Christian system, the resurrection. 

(Acts 5 δ: 80, 31. 13: 28—39. 17: 3. 10: 38—42. 1 Cor. 16: 1—9. 20— 
29.) A detailed recital of these events was necessarily occasioned by 
the references made to prophetic declarations for the purpose of show- 
ing that such a fate was predicted of the Messiah. (See the passages 
above mentioned ; likewise Acts 17: 8 and 11, «a0 ἡμέραν ἀναχρίνον- 
τὲς τὰς γραφὰς, οὐ ἔχου ταῦτα οὕτως. 8: 85. 18: 28. 26: 22, 23. 28: 23, 

24.) With these events were connected the doctrines of the dominion 
of the world, which as Messiah he assumed after he was glorified, and 
of a final judgment and retribution in another state of ‘existence, as 
may be perceived from many of the passages above referred to. In 
foreign countries they were obliged, to say the least, to reside very long 
in one place, as Paul did at Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, in order to 
have time sufficient for detailed narratives. 

At home, however, in the native land of Christianity, the previous 
knowledge of the people released them entirely from the necessity of 
such particularity. The actions of Jesus were so notorious in Pales- 
tine, that in preaching and instructing it was merely necessary to refer 
to the common knowledge of his history possessed by the generation 


. then alive; as Peter did, according to the account in Acts 2:22, and 


subsequently, even on occasion of the conversion of heathen at Cesarea, 
(Acts 10: 37 seq.) and as Paul did ata still later period before king 
Agrippa. (Acts 26: 26 seq.) Now, as the history might be assumed in 
Palestine as generally known, the mode of teaching which naturally 
arose was to state the principal points in it as unquestionable, and then 
to found doctrines upon them. 

The course, then, pursued by the apostles in foreign countries, unless 
they abode a long time in one place, contradicts the supposition of such 
ἃ χηρυγμα, oF such detailed and connected narratives, that histories of 
Jesus’ ministry could be composed from them; and in particular such 
circumstantial narration is refuted by the procedure of the apostles in 
Palestine, where they referred directly to the knowledge which already 
existed among the people themselves. 

Thus the words xadwe παρέδοσαν, for this reason likewise, can 
mean only as follows: a narrative like ‘those which eye-witnesses and 
authorised teachers have delivered into our hands; such for instance, as 
Matthew’s, and the one given by Peter through Mark. 

So much concerning the first part of this sentence; the second part 
ἔδοξε xqgmol, presents an antithesis. As many have ventured to com- 
pose histories after the examples of eye- witnesses, ἢ also thought myself 
authorised. ‘The words παρηκολουϑηκότι ἄνωϑεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς Con- 
tain a further explanation and confirmation of the right he had to engage 
in his undertaking. I originally misunderstood these words, and first 
corrected my mistake on occasion of preparing my lectures upon De- 
mosthenes’ oration Pro corond. 

The word παρακολουϑεῖν includes the idea of presence. Used con- 
cerning events, it signifies to be present while they are passing, and, in 
its strictest sense, to be an eye-witness of what takes place. It also 
signifies to be mentally present, to accompany an addraeg sic pla or 


“«) 
7 » a i Sas tf bea x 
a, VA&e teenth of ὁ 6 δι ort) lavhe ιν, Orbe fear 
ν "ὦ 
t πο. ὁ fA. ; is - 
Orvik, Sfitn Αἱ ὁ, ς gir 4 7 ἡ it u mH Cele 
/ “ " } 
=f ᾿ ᾿ 7 , 
aa δι. ε A 4 i ra Of Oa Aas aa £ , 


390 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


written composition with attention, and occurs frequently in this sense 
in the works of the ancients.! 

As it respects πᾶσι, we have our choice either to make it refer to the 
persons previously mentioned or, to πράγματα, the things which were 
notorious. For these two nouns are both in the plural number, and 
πᾶσι may refer to either. ‘ 

If it be considered as referring to the men, e. g. to the αὐτόπται and 
ὑπηρέταν τοῦ λόγου, the clause will signify: Having read the eye-wit- 
nesses with care, I will now, that you may no longer be in error, inform 
you of the truth. Who could avoid being perplexed that the historian 
should modestly apologise for venturing to publish a memoir of our 
Lord, after teachers commissioned by Christ himself, and on the other 
hand should presume to declare that he intended to do what had not 
yet been done, viz. to ascertain the truth, i. 6. to give a more accurate 
account than they? If the word πᾶσι be made to refer to both the 
many, πολλούς, and the eye-witnesses together, (as indeed the expression 
πᾶσι includes the whole, and must relate to both,) no injustice is done 
to the many, it is true, by Luke’s thinking himself better informed 
than they; this would be consonant with his more elevated point of 
view and the objects at which he aimed : but there would still subsist the 
same disrespect towards the eye-witnesses and authorised teachers; and 
what is yet more unbecoming, he would class them in the same cate- 
gory with the many. If he intended to say: I have read them with 
care, he would have expressed himself accurately and definitely, if in- 
stead of, ‘I have read the men with care,’ he had put writings, as he 
might have done by changing two syllables: ἀνατάξασϑαι dinyys ees 
and παρακολουϑηκότι--πάσαες. 

The other noun in the plural number to which πᾶσεν may refer is 
πράγματα, the notorious occurrences. The expression παραχολουϑεῖν 
τοῖς πράγμασι is common with the ancients, and signifies, to follow 
events with attention as they occur. There obtains, however, a nice 
distinction in its signification: in reference to a single event con- 
, fined to one place, it signifies to be present at it, to be an eye-witness of 
it, as in the passage which we have cited below from Lucian’s Lapi- 
thean feast. But when used in speaking of events which are not con- 
fined to a single place, but occur in various places, and have whole 
countries for their theatre, it signifies that they are followed with atten- 
tion from a certain point of view. Thus Demosthenes observed the 
events of his time with the eve of a statesman; Thucydides the occur- 
rences of the Peloponnesian war as a soldier ; and so did Josephus those 
of the Jewish war. In this sense the expression παρακολουϑεῖν τοῖς 
πράγμασι, is used by them in the passages cited.” 


᾿ Theophrast. Character. Procem. Polyb. L. 1. e. 12. L. III. ς. 62,, and 
many other passages referred to in Gataker ad Antonin. L. V. sec. 5. p. 
188. Raphelius Annotat. in N. Τ᾿. ex Polyb. &c. Kypke, Wetsten. ad h. loc. 


2 Demosth. De corona. c. 33. p 382. ed. Harles. 1768. Reiske, T. I. p. 285. 
n. 20. ° Exeivoc ὃ καιρὸς, καὶ ἢ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη, οὐ μόνον εὔνουν καὶ πλούσιον ἄνδρα 
ἐκάλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρηκολουϑηκότα τοὶς πράγμασιν ἐξαρχῆς, καὶ 
συλλογισόμενον ὀρϑῦς. De falsa legat. p. 423. n. 90. “O τὰ τούτου πονηρεύματα 
ἀκριβέστατα εἰδὼς ἐγὼ, κααπαρεκολουϑηκώς ἅπασι. In Aristocrat. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 391 


The acts of Jesus were of this latter kind; not confined to a single 
place, but scattered through Galilee and Judea. Now when Luke as- 
serts that he was one παρηκολουϑηκὼς ἄνωϑεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς---τοῖς 
moayuaot—he does not express-himself as having been an eye-witness 
of all the events, but as having been in the region of their occurrence, 
where he could observe them as they took place ; and this ἄνωϑεν, 
from the beginning, from their first development. He means to say, 
therefore: I think myself authorised, who have attentively followed all 
these events from their commencement, etc. In this way he establish- 
es in an eminent manner his claim to preference above the many. 

He then promises καϑεξῆς γράψαι, just as Thucydides expresses 
himself in his introduction, ἕξῆς ὡς ἕκαστα ἐγίγνετο, according to the 


p- 683, n.5. Τί δήποτε, ταῦτ εἰδὼς οὕτως ἀκριβῶς ἐγὼ, καὶ παρηκολοῦ -- 
ϑηκὼς ἐνίοις τῶν ἀδικημάτων. τς: ΤΙ. in Olympiodor. Ρ. 1178. η. 10. Tots 
εἰδόσιν ἀχριβῶς ἅπαντα ταῦτα τὰ πράγματα ὡς ἔχει, καὶ πα θῆκο λουϑη- 
κόσιν ἐξαρχῆς. Demost. Epist. [. p. 1463, end. AM ὅσα τυγχάνω δὶ 
ἐμπειρίαν, καὶ τὸ παρακολουϑηκέναι τοὺς πράγμασιν εἰδὼς, 
ταῦτ ἐβουλήϑην τοῖς μὲν προαιρουμένοις λέγειν ἐμφανῆ ποιήσας. 

The Scholiast in Thucyd, V. 26: Καϑ' ἡσυχίαν τὶ αὐτῶν μᾶλλον 
αἰσϑέσϑαι, explains the words thus: Ζιὰ τὸ ἡσυχάζειν καὶ μὴ πολεμεῖν 
αὐτὸν, μᾶλλον παρακολουϑῆσαι τοῖς γενομένοις. Joseph. contra Apion. Lak. 
ο. 10. Aéov ἐ ἐχεῖνο γινώσκειν, ὅτι δεῖ τὸν ἀλλοῖς παράδοσιν πραξέων ἀληϑινῶν 
ὑπισχνούμενον, αὐτὰς ἐπίστασϑαι ταῦτας πρότερον ἀκριβῶς, ἡ ὄπαρακο- 
λου ϑηκότα τοῖς γεγονόσιν, ἢ πάρα τῶν εἰδότων πυνϑανόμενον. Observe 
the antithesis of the last words. The same antithesis recurs in Vit. Jose- 
phi. ο. 65. Ρ. 99, in his apostrophe to Justus of Tiberias : Μήτε τὰ πραχ- 
ϑέντα κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλαΐαν ἐπιστάμενος, ἧς γὰρ ἐν Βηρύτῳ τότε παρὰ βασιλεῖ, 
un ὅσα ἔπαϑον * Ῥωμαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ιωταπάτων πολιορκίας, ἢ ἔδρασαν ἡμᾶς, 
παρακολουϑήσας, μήϑ᾽ ὅσα κατ ἐμαυτὸν. ἔπραξα πολιορκούμενος δυνη-- 
ϑεὶς πυϑέσϑαι. Πάντες γὰρ οἵ ἀπαγγείλαντες ἂν διερϑάρησαν ἐπὶ τῆς παρα-- 
τάξεως ἐχείνης. In Polyb. L. I. ο. 67, the soldiers complain of the Cartha- 
ginians that they had not sent them generals who were acquainted witb 
their deeds in Sicily, but one who had never been present to observe 
them: Καρχηδονίους ἐπίτηδες τοὺς μὲν εἰδότας στρατηγοὺς τὰς γεγενημένας 

χρείας κατὰ Σικελίαν ἐξ αὐτῶν. .. . οὐκ ἐξαποστέλλειν ὡς αὑτούς " τὸν δὲ undevi 
τούτων παρηκολουϑηκότοα, τοῦτον ἐχπεπομφέναι. Remark the antithe- 
sis in Lucian (Conviv. seu Lapith. T. IX. Bipont. Ρ. 46,) ὁ ὥστε ϑαμμδίω εἴ 
τι σαφὲς εἰπεῖν ἐδύνατο, μὴ παραχολουϑήσας ἐ ἐκείνοις, ap ὧν ἀρξαμένη ἐς τὸ 
αἷμα ἐτελεύτησεν αὐτοῖς ἢ φιλονεικία. Comp. Raphelius, Wetstein. In the 
N. T. this expression occurs in 1 Tim. 4: 6. καὶ τῆς Silas διδασκαλίας, ἡ 
παρηκολούϑηκας : in the instruction of which thou hast been a present wit- 
ness. We find it in the more limited sense in2 Tim. 3:10. Σὺ δὲ 
παρηκολούϑηκας μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, τῇ ἀγωγῇ, thou hast been an observing 
witness of my doctrines. In the following verse, however, τοῖς διωγμοῖς ἐν 
᾿Αντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Τκονίῳ, it takes the more extended signification : thow wast 
near the scene of the persecutions which I underwent at Antioch, Iconiwm and 
Lystra. At that time, indeed, Timothy had not yet become connected 
with Paul, and was but a boy ; but he lived in this region (Acts 16: 1, 2), 
and might have been a spectator of some of the occurrences, and have 
heard on the spot of others. 


392 | THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


actual succession of events, to describe them in the order in which they 
took place. 

He moreover assures Theophilus, for whom, primarily, he wrote his 
work, that he shall have τὴν ἀσφαλέιαν, certain information, a true 
account. 

This ἀσφάλεια he was to have, the historian says, speaking to Theo- 
philus, περὶ ὧν κατηχήϑης λόγων. ‘These words either refer to the 
christian instruction generally which had been received by Theophilus, 
which Luke intended to exalt to absolute certainty, or to the accounts 
of the many, the contents of which had been learned by Theophilus 
from oral information. Ido not believe that Luke intended to hint to 
his friend the doubtful nature of the information of his colleagues, or to 
depreciate his teachers in his estimation. The λόγοι περὶ ὧν κατη- 
χήϑης can then refer only to the communications orally made to him 
out of the histories of the many ; and it was Luke’s intention to correct 
these, and present to his friend such parts of them as were accurate and 
well authenticated. This is even required by the phraseology ; for in 
Herodotus, Xenophon, and others, λόγου are historical books, as Luke 
likewise calls his first history, viz. his Gospel, πρῶτον λόγον. (Acts 
1:1.) When the word is in the plural number it has this signification ; 
when, on the contrary, it signifies the doctrines of christianity, it al- 
ways appears in the singular : ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου; διακονία τοῦ λόγου, 
τὸν λόγον λαλεῖν, tov λόγον axovety, τὸν Aoyov δέχεσθαι, &c. 

If now we examine our Proemium again, we shall find its sense to 
to be as follows: ‘“‘ Many have composed accounts of the acts of our 
Lord, like those which eye-witnesses and ministers of the word have 
published : it will, therefore, be permitted me, likewise, to narrate these 
events in their order for thy advantage, that thou mayest ascertain wliat 
is true of the various relations which have been given thee ;, especially 
as I have carefully and attentively followed these events in the region 
where they occurred from the time when they began to develope them- 
selves.” ‘I'hese words comprise a description of the literature of Chris- 
tianity in the time of Luke. 

I. According to this representation there had appeared works on the 
history of Jesus by the hand of eye-witnesses and ministers of the faith, 
which’ had met with such ἃ reception among Christians that others had 
been incited and induced to signalize themselves by similar works, and 
of these there were not merely one or two, but many. Although they 
could not expect to be held in equal estimation with their predecessors, 
who possessed advantages over them both from their personal knowl- 
edge of facts and from their office, still they did not remain unnoticed 
or without repute. Much less can we suppose this to have been the fate 
of the works which were of apostolical origin, or that they were un- 
known to the succeeding writers. ‘To say the least, Luke, as we see, 
was acquainted with the works of his predecessors, and in regard to 
him the contrary assertion is positively false. 

II. The many who are referred to did not translate from any work al- 
ready in existence, with the aid perhaps of versions of it which had 
been made before ;, they composed their histories, συνέταξαν dey- 
γήσεις, not ἡυμένευσαν. This was their mode of procedure, and the 
usual mode, and we must suppose it to have been that of eye-witness 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 393 


es more especially, as they had less reason to rely on foreign aid. Itis 
very plain that Luke proceeded in the same way. He asserts his inde- 
pendence, appeals in support of it to his having been in the vicinity of the 
events while they were taking place, and pledges himself to present them 
in the order of their occurrence and to give an authentic account of what 
had happened. Thus, if the hypotheses of the day are applicable to 
others, they certainly are not to him. 

III. From the facts we have adduced in explanation of the introduc- 
tion, this also is clear. As long as an appeal could be made to the com- 
mon knowledge of the people, the necessity of a history was not felt by 
the teachers or by the people. But when the generation of contempo- 
raries began gradually to pass away, and the number of those who re- 
tained in their memories the fame of our Lord’s actions and were vouch- 
ers for them was continually diminishing, the want of documents be- 
gan to be felt, and it became necessary to supply the place of the ex- 
piring voice of the people by written accounts. We hence see that the 
history of our Lord’s actions could not have been written very early ; 
not before a considerable time had elapsed after his death. Moreover, 
those engaged in the oflice of teaching must have been the first to per- 
ceive the necessity of assisting the declining knowledge of the people, ἡ 
from the impediments they met with in their employment; and hence 
i is not at all strange that the first histories should have come from Apos- 
tles. 

Now, however, it happened as it invariably does; the way once open- 
ed, the many followed and collected together in books the stories of 
their fathers and the surviving reports of the time. Thus arose at once 
a historic era in the Christian school. ; 

IV. Under these circumstances Luke appeared ; and his special ob- 
ject was to set his friend’s mind at rest respecting the many histories 
which followed the earliest works of the apostles, and to supply the 
place of their unauthenticated statements with a true exhibition of 
facts. 


§ 34. 


Luke, although in his phraseology we perceive more Greek elegance 
than in the other Gospels, is still in the tone and coloring of his lan- 
guage a Jew or Syrian. If we consider the acquaintance with Judaism 
which he exhibits in both his works, we must admit that his was no su- 
perficial and half-way knowledge of the opinions of the Jews, though 
it was almost impossible for a foreigner to comprehend them; and that 
he was perfectly familiar with the ceremonies of their temple-service 
and their other religious solemnities. The interpreter of his Gospel is 
never left in the dark, or tempted to wish that the writer had possessed 
a better acquaintance with Judaism, its ritual and ceremonials. No 
special proof of this can be required in the way of examples, as their 
number would be too great, and we should be obliged to attend to ma- 
ny minutiw, which, however, are the very things in which nicety of 
knowledge is evinced. Thus much may be inferred from his language 
and the knowledge he exhibits; viz. from the former, that he was an 


394 ὃ THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


inhabitant of Syria or Palestine ; from the latter, that he was a Jew or 
a well-informed proselyte. 

As to the first point, history affords us information of a more decisive 
character ; according to which Luke was born at Antioch.' Moreover, 
in regard to his religious circumstances, we infer from the Epistle to the 
Colossians that he was an adherent to Judaism from his own choice, 
not from his descent or birth. At the close of this Epistle, Paul sub- 
joins the salutations of friends who were then with him, and mentions: 
first those of Jewish extraction. (4: 10—12.) After concluding the 
catalogue of those ἔχ περιτομῆς, he adds the rest, and among them 
Luke (11—15), who is therefore to be regarded as a proselyte. 

His occupation was that ofa physician,” (Coloss. 4: 14), and he could 
not want opportunity to prepare himself for it in so scientific a city as 
Antioch. Perhaps it was his desire to become more intimately acquainted 
with the religion he had chosen which led him to Palestine, the ancient 
seat of Judaism, as Paul was led thither by his zeal in the pursuit of 
learning. But whatever may have been the reason, he was residing in 
the country, according to his introduction, when Jesus entered on his 
ministry and went about teaching and healing. Luke, from his being 
a physician, had peculiar motives to pay attention to facts of this kind ; 
and on this account, likewise, his statements possess a peculiar value, 
as those of a person of judgment and experience. 

As to his relation to the Christian sect at its rise, a tradition has been 
preserved that he was one of the seventy disciples.2_ This account is 
confirmed by the fact that he alone of all the Evangelists has mentioned 
the seventy, and carefully given the history of their mission and return 
and the instructions connected with them (10: 1—25), as though he 
felt himself called upon to do so by particular personal concern in them. 
Moreover, he exhibits a minute acquaintance with these occurrences, 
such as could be expected only from an eye-witness. 

He has nowhere mentioned the time when he left Palestine. When 
Paul first ventured to pass over into Europe, Luke resided at Alexan- 
dria-Troas, and went with him. (Acts 16:8, 11.) Was it the case that 
he had previously become acquainted with Paul at Antioch, and was 
now induced by afiection and veneration to offer himself as his compan- 
ion in this enterprise? He accompanied the apostle over to Philippi, 
(Acts 16: 12), and when the latter was here thrown into prison, Luke re- 
mained at liberty, and seems even to have resided in this city for a long 
period. When Paul, some years after, returned to Asia by way of 


1 Euseb. H. E.L. 1Π.. 6. 4. Hieronym. Script. Eccles. V. Lucas. 

2 Traces have been found, it is thought, in his writings of his medical profes- 
sion. In his Gospel (4: 38) he speaks of a πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, just as Galen (De 
diff. febr.) distinguishes τὸν μέγαν τὲ παὶ μιπρὰν πυρετόν. (Wetsten. ad loc.) In 
Acts 13: 11, he uses the technical word ἀχλύς respecting blindness. (Galen. apud 
Wetsten. ad loe.) 

3 Origen. Dial. contra Marcion. Sect. I. p. 8. 64. Wetsten. and Tom. I. Opp. 
Ρ. 806. ed. Dela Rue.—Epiphan. Adv. Heres. XXXI. or LI. ὃ 12. 

Theophylact (Proem. in Comm. in Evang. Luc.) seems to have had good au- 
thority for saying : ovuds ὁ ϑεῖος, ᾿Αντιοχεῦς μὲν ἦν, ἰατρὸς δὲ καὶ τὴν ἕξω σο-- 
φίαν πολὺς, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν “Εβραικὴν παιδείαν ἐξησκήσατο, τοῖς “17 e 0- 
σολύμοες ἐπιφοιτήσας, ὅτε ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἐδίδασκεν. “Ὥστε 
φασί τινὲς ἕνα καὶ αὐτὸν γενέσθαι τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἀποστόλων. 


‘OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 395 


~~ Macedonia from his second European journey, Luke was still there. 
He may perhaps have crossed from Asia to Philippi to meet Paul; at 
any rate he was in his company at the embarkation for Troas (Acts 20: 
6), and went with him to Jerusalem, (Acts 21:27), where Paul was appre- 
hended. 

This time, likewise, Luke did not share his imprisonment, but seems 
to have followed him of his own accord to Cesarea, and, as the friends 
of the prisoner had access to him (Acts 24: 23), not tu have forsaken 
him till his destination was determined. Then, when Paul was sent to 
Rome to receive sentence, Luke embarked with him (Acts 27: 1), and 
remained at his side (2 Tim. 4: 11. Coloss. 4: 14. Philem. 24), till his fate 
was decided. 

He has been sometimes supposed to be the Lucius from whom Paul 
sends a salutation in his Epistle to the Romans (16: 2) ; but Luke was 
not at Corinth at the time when that Epistle was written. He resided, 
as we have said, at Philippi; or perhaps went over from Troas to meet 
the apostle when he was on his way through Macedonia. The truth on 
the latter point is of little importance in the case; suffice it to say, that 
his absence from Paul at that time does not permit us to confound him 
with this Lucius. 

Some Mss. of the old Latin version call his book Evangelium secun- 
dum Lucanum ;' from which it has been inferred that he wasa freedman, 
whose name according to the Roman custom was changed to Lucanus. 
The supposition has seemed the more plausible as slaves often practised 
the art of medicine.” But besides that there is no trace of this change 
of name either in the fathers or in other versions, we’ know that the 
Latin copyists sometimes took the liberty to make Offanus of Offa, 
Bedanus of Beda, etc.’ 


§ 35. 


He wrote his Gospel primarily for a certain Theophilus, to whom he 
gives the title χράτεστος, which in the ancient inscriptions is conferred up- 
on high priests and priestesses, those who had the superintendence of sa- 
cred edifices and games, deputies of the emperor in the provinces, over- 
seers of the emperor’s revenues, ἐπι θόποις Tov xaioagos,? ducenarits 
exactoribus, such as were the ἐπίτροπον in the Palmyrene inscriptions. 

Were we better informed in regard to this person to whom Luke has 
dedicated his writings, considerable light might be thrown on the 
history of this Gospel; unfortunately, however, the investigations con- 
cerning this point have been nearly unavailing, are too general in their 
results, and promise little for the future. 

Judging from the observations made by Luke to render himself intel- 
ligible ‘and perspicuous to his reader, the latter certainly cannot have 


1 Cod. Vercell. 5. Eusebii. Vindobon. Cottonian. 

2 Sueton. in Caio, c. 8. Seneca, De benef. III. 24. Quinctilian, VIL. 2. n. 26. 

3 Mabillon, Vet. Analect.T. 1V. p. 521 

4 Wheeler's Journey into Greece. Vol. III. p. 233. 4NT. Κι. AADHNON 
KPATIZ TON ἘΠΙΤΡΟΠΟΝ TOY SEBASTOY, x. τ. h 


396 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS | 


been an inhabitant of Palestine. Speaking of Capernaum, he is obli- 
ged to add that it is a city in Galilee, (4: 31.) So in speaking of Naza- 
reth (1:26); and Arimathea, (23:51.) He is obliged to specify minute- 
ly the situation of the country of the Gadarenes. (8: 26.) He tells the 
situation of Mount Olivet, and its distance from Jerusalem, (Acts 1: 12), 
and specifies in stadia the distance of Emmaus from the capital. (Gosp- 
Luke 24: 13.) 

He was certainly, too, not an inhabitant of Crete, (Acts 27: 8 and 
12) nor of Athens or its vicinity, for in that case he would not have 
been obliged to make the observation he does concerning the charac- 
teristic trait of this people, which had been pointed out before by De- 
mosthenes (Orat. I. in Phil.) ἢ βούλεσϑε περιϊόντες nuvOaveodas 
κατὰ τὴν ἀγοράν, λέγεταί Te καινόν. (Acts 17:21.) Nor can we sup- 
pose him to have been a Macedonian. (Acts 16: 12.) 

An inhabitant of Antioch, too, could hardly have been so ignorant of 
the geography of Palestine, which was so near. It is an assertion of 
modern date, made by the lexicographer Bar Bahlul, that he was an 
Alexandrian; but this is invalidated by the circumstance that the old 
Alexandrian fathers did not ascribe this honor to their church. Origen 
seems to have known no more than that Luke wrote for Gentiles. (Euseb. 
Hi. Eccl. L. VI. ο. 25.) 

The testimony of the Alexandrian patriarch Eutychius in favor of 
some distinguished man in Rome or Italy! is too remote from those 
times to be decisive; yet it has some plausibility. We see that Luke 
is careful to give Theophilus explanations respecting places with which 
he supposed him to be unacquainted. This he does in narrating Paul’s 
voyage to Rome ; and for that purpose is very particular in his descrip- 
tions. (Acts 27: 8, 12 and 16.) But when he comes to Sicily and Italy, 
(Acts 28: 12, 13 and 15), he mentions all the cities as though they were 
well known to Theophilus ; Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli, (on which last 
name Josephus was obliged to comment for the sake of his Greek and 
oriental readers,”) as well as still smaller places, Tres Taberne, Via 
Appia, etc. 


§ 36. 


That, Luke was acquainted with Matthew’s work is clear from many 
parts of his book; it is most evident, however, from the passages taken 


ἄλσεσι! US Ui Lest COST fas pas (35 


Eutych. Orig. Eccles. Alex. Edit. Seldeni. Lond. 1642. p. 36. The author plain- 
ly distinguishes between >) Sf and Badles 5 and hence the word es 


1 


has the confined signification of Rome or its precincts, contrary to common Ara- 
bic usage. The whole work appeared subsequently: Eutychii Patr. Alexandrini 
Annales. Jo. Seldeno et Edw. Pocockio, Oxon. 1658, in which the passage may 
be found in T. I. p. 334. 


2 Josephi Vita, p. 626. Ed. Basil. «Ζικαιαρχίαν, ἣν ᾿Ιπάλοι Ποτεόλους uadovor. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 397 


away from their connection by Mark, but omitted by him in their proper 


ne, 


Matth. 8: 19. 


3 , 
AxohovIijow σοι ὅπου 
‘ > ’ 
ἐὰν ἀπέρχῃ. 

" ' ~ i ~ 
Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὃ Ἰησοῦς 
Ai ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἐ ἔχουσι, 
καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
κατασκηνώσεις " 

c ΝΠ τεΐ ~ 3 , 
ὃ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
> UJ 
οὔκ ἔχει 
ie AC 4 ‘ 4 i 
ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ. 


Matth. 8: 9. 


Kai γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνϑρωπός εἰμι 
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, 


ἔχων in ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας" 
καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, πορεύϑητι, 
καὶ πορεύεται" 
καὶ ἄλλῳ, ἢ ἔρχου, 
καὶ ἔρχεται" 
καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, ποίησον 
τοῦτο, 
καὶ ποιεῖ. 
᾿Ακούσας δὲ 6 Inoois, 
ἐθαύμασε, 
καὶ εἶπε τοῖς ἀακολουϑοῖσιν" 


3 ‘ ~ 

᾿Δμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, 

οὐδὲ ἐ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ 
τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. 


Matth. 12: 43. 


Ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάϑαρτον πνεῦμα 
ἐξέλϑῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου, 
διέρχεται δὶ ἀνύδρων τόπων, 

ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν, 
καὶ οὐκ εὑρίσκει. 
Tots λέγει" ᾿Επιστρέψω 
εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου, 
ὅϑεν ἐξῆλϑον. 
Καὶ ἐλϑον εὑρίσκει 
σχολάζοντα, 


place ; all of which Luke has restored from Matthew, and literally tran- 
sdiibed into his own work. . 


Aven 


& 


Luke 9: 57. 


᾿Ακολουϑήσω σοι ὅπου 
ἂν ἀπέρχῃ, κύριε. 
Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὃ Ἰησοῦς 
Ab ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσι, 
καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
κατασχηνώσεις * 
ε ‘ et - 2 , 
ὃ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου 
οὐκ ἔχεν 
- ‘ 4 ’ 
ποῦ THY κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ. 


Luke 7: 8. 


Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνϑρωπός εἰμι 
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν 
τασσόμενος, ‘ 

ἔχων un ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας * 
καὶ λέγω τούτῳ " ͵Πορεύϑητι, 
καὶ πορεύεται" 

καὶ ἄλλῳ " Ἔρχου, 
καὶ ἔρχεται" 
καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου " Ποίησον 
τοῦτο, 
καὶ ποιεῖ. 
᾿Αχκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς, 
ἐθαύμασεν αὑτόν" iy 
καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουϑοῦντι 
αὑτῷ ὀχλῴ εἶπε" 
Λέγω ὑμῖν, 
οὐδὲ ἐ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ 
τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. ᾿ 


Luke 11: 24. 

“Ὅταν τὸ ᾿ἀκάϑαρτον πνεῦμα 
ἐξέλϑη ἀπὸ τοῦ, ἀνϑρώπου, 
διέρχεταν δὶ ἀνύδρων τύπων, 

ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν" 

καὺ μὴ εὑρίσκον; 
λέγει" ᾿ὕποστρέψω 

εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου, 

ὅϑεν ἐξῆλϑον. 

Καὶ ἐλϑὸν εὑρίσκει x 


398 


Matth. 12: 43. 


σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον. 
, , 
Tore πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει 


μεϑ' ἑαυτοῦ 


’ ΓΔ 
ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα 
πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ, 


THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Luke 11: 24. 


' XN ' 
_ CEO O LC LEVON KEY BEACON HEN OM, 
Tote πορεύεταν καὶ παραλαμβᾶνεν 


ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα 
πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ, 


΄ ~ ~ Ι ΓΞ 
χαὶ εἰσελϑόντα κατοικεῖ, ἐκεῖ" | HOLL εἰσελϑόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ * 


‘ 
καὶ γίνεταν τὰ ἔσχατα 
~ 2 7, 2 , | 
TOU ἀνϑρώπου ἐκείνου 
~ ΄ 
χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. 


§ 37. 


4 , 
καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα 
~ 2 , 
τοῦ ἀνϑρωπου éxsivou 
~ , 
χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. 


This coincidence with Matthew, however, is found only in narratives 
omitted by Mark ; in other cases Luke adheres more closely to the lat- 


ter than the former. 


As we have before cited the feeding of the four 


thousand, we will now take for an example the feeding of the five 


thousand. 
Matth. 14: 15. 


᾿Απόλυσον τοὺς ὕχλους, 
c > ΄ 
ἵνα ἀπελϑόοντες 
εἰς τὰς 


κώμας, 
ἀγοράσωσιν ἑαυτοῖς 
’ 
ο΄ βρώματα. 
® 
“Ὃ δὲ ᾿Τησοῦς εἶπεν 
αὐτοῖς * 
Ov χρείαν ἔχουσιν 
' ~ 
ἀπεέλϑεὶν" 
δότε αὑτοῖς ὑμεῖς 
φαγεῖν pas 
λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους 


καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχϑύας, 
ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν 
οὐρανὸν, 
εὐλόγησε" 
καὶ κλάσας, 


ἔδωκξ 
TOUS μαϑηταὶς 
τοὺς ἄρτους " 
οἱ δὲ μαϑηταὶ τοῖς 
ὕχλοις. 


Mark 6. 36. 


32 πὶ 4 
Anohuooyv αὐτοὺς, 
ca > , 
ἵνα ἀπελϑόοντες 
A 
εἰς TOUS 
ld 
nurhe 
ἀγροὺς 
καὶ κώμας, 
ἀγοράσωσιν ἑαυτοῖς 
ἄρτους ᾿" 
τἰ γὰρ φάγωσιν οὐκ 
ἔχουσιν. 


a >. Ξ 
“O δὲ ἀποκρυϑεὶς εἶπεν 


αἰτοῖς" 


Aote αὑτοῖς ὑμεῖς 
φαγεῖν. ... 
Καὶ λαβὼν τούς πέντε 
ἄρτους 
καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχϑύας, 
ἀγαβλέψας εἰς τὸν 
οὐρανὸν, 
εὐλόγησε" 
χαὶ κατέκλασε 
τοὺς ἄρτους, 
καὶ ἐδίδου 
τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὑτοῦ, 


c ~ 
ἵνα παραϑῶσιν 
αὑτοῖς. 


Luke 9: 12. 


3 4 »” 
᾿“πόλυσον τὸν Όχλον, 
ray 3 ΄ 
ἵνα ἀπελϑοντες 
εἰς τὰς 
, 
κύκλῳ 
κώμας 
καὶ τοὺς ἀγροὺς, 
καταλύσωσι, καὶ εὕρωσιν 
ἐπισιτισμόν " 
ὅτι ὧδε ἐν ἐρήμῳ τύπῳ 
ἐσμέν. 
> 2 
Εἶπε δὲ πρὸς αὑτούς * 


3 ~ ε ~ 
Aote αὑτοὶς ὑμεῖς 
φαγεῖν. ... 

‘ ᾿ ‘ 
«“Ἰαβὼν δὲ τοὺς πέντε 
, 
ἄρτους 
" 1 re ΄ 
καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχϑύας, 
ἀναβλέψας. εἰς τὸν 
οὐρανὸν, 
εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς" 
καὶ κατέκλασε, 


καὶ ἐδίδου 
τοὶς μαϑηταῖς, 


παρατυϑέναι τῷ 
ὄχλῳ. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 399 


Matth. 26: 18. 
Ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν πόλιν 


‘ ‘ ὃ δ᾿, 
προς τον θεῖνα, 


ee =e 
κα ELILATE αὑτῷ 


50 διδάσκαλος λέγει" 
Ὅ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστι." 
πρός σε ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα, 
μετά τῶν μαϑητῶν μου. 


Καὶ ἐποίησαν οἵ μαϑηταὶ 
ὡς συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς 
ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς, 
καὶ ἡτοίμασαν τὸ 
πάσχα. 


Luke [8: 18. 


Mark 14: 13. 


> ΄ ΓΕ 
ἀπαντησεε ὑμῖν 
, 
ἄνϑρωπος 
κεράμιον ὕδατος 
βαστάζων" 
2 la > - 
ἀκολουϑῆσατε αὐτῷ " 
ν ὦ a' > » 
καὶ ὁπου ἐὰν εἰσέλϑῃ, 


5 Laid ee) 
εἴπατε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ " 


“Ὅτι ὃ διδάσκαλος λέχει" 


Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμα, 
ὕπου τὸ πάσχα 
μετὰ τῶν μαϑητῶν μου 
φάγω; 

Καὶ αὐτὸς ὑμῖν δείξει 
ἀνώγεον μέγα 
ἐστρωμένον, 


͵ τ ΄ 
ἕτοιμον" ἐκεῖ ἑτοιμάσατε 


ἡμῖν. 


Luke 22: 10. 


Συναντήσει ὑμῖν 
ἄνθρωπος 
κεράμιον ὕδατος 
βαστάζων" 
ἀκολουϑήσατε α ὑτῷ 
εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ou 
εἰσπορεύεται " 
καὶ ἐρεῖτε 1 τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ, 
“τῆς οἰκίας " 

Asyeu σοι ὃ διδάσκαλος " 
Ποῦ ἔστι τὸ κατάλυμα, 
ὅπου τὸ πάσχα 
μετὰ τῶν μαϑητῶν μου 
φάγω; 
Κακεῖνος ὑμῖν δείξει 
ἀνώγεον μέγα 
ἐστρωμένον " 


γεν , 
EXEL ETOLMOO ATE. 


Mark 10: 17. 


᾿Επηρωτησέ τις αὐτὸν. ... 
Διδάσκαλε ἀγαϑὲ, τὶ ποιήσας 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; 
Eins δὲ αὐτῷ δ᾽ Τησοῦς" 

Τί μὲ λέγεις ἀγαϑόν; ; 
οὐδεὶς ἀγαϑὸς, εἰ, μὴ εἷς, ὃ ϑεός. 
Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας" 

‘i “Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς " μὴ φονεύσης" 
μὴ κλέψῃς" μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσης᾽" 


τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν 
μητέρα cov.” 
“O δὲ εἶπε" 


Ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξ oun 
ἐκ νεότητός μου. 
᾿ΔΑκούσας δὲ ταῦτα δ᾽ Τησοῦς, 

εἶπεν αὐτῷ" 


UZ 
Ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει" 
πάντα ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον, 
καὶ διάδος πτωχοῖς, 
NV οἡ aT ᾿ > ~ 
καὶ ἕξεις ϑησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ 
καὶ δεῦρο, ἀκολούϑει Hors... 
ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς... «. εἶπε" 


a 4... ΘΠ 


᾿Επηρώτα αὐτόν" 
Ζιδάσκαλε ἀγαϑὲ, τί ποιήσω, 
ἵνα ἢ ζωὴν. αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω ; 5 
“O δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ * 

Τί μὲ λέγεις ἀγαϑόν; ὍΝ 
οὐδεὶς ἀγαϑὸς, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὃ ϑεὸς. 
Τάς ἐντολὰς οἶδας " 

“ My μοιχεύσῃς " μὴ φονεύσῃς " 
μὴ κλέψῃς " μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς " 
μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς " 
τίμα τὸν πατέρα σι καὶ τὴν 
μητέρα." 

“0 δὲ ἀποχριϑεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ * 
Διδάσκαλε, 
ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξ ξάμην 
ἐκ νεότητός μου. 

“O 08° Τησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ, 
ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν, 
λαὶ εἶπτεν. αὐτῷ " 

“Ey σοι ὕστερεῖ" 
ὕπαγε, ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον," 
καὶ δὸς τοῖς πτωχοὶς * 
καὶ ἕξεις ϑησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ " 
καὶ δεῦρο, ἀκολούϑει μου. « «. 

δ᾽ Inoovs λέγει. ..... 


400 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Luke 18: 18. Mark 10: 17. 
Πῶς δυσκόλως 
οἵ τὰ χρή ματὰ ἔχοντες οἵ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες 
εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεου 
tov ϑεοῦ! ᾿ εἰσελεύσονται !...... 
ὐκοπώτερον γάρ ἐστι; Εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι, 
κάμηλον διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς κάμηλον διὰ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς 
ῥαφίδος ῥαφίδος 
εἰσελϑεῖν, ἢ πλούσιον εἴσελϑεῖν, 1) πλούσιον 
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
εἰσελϑεῖν. εἰσελϑεῖν" 


Πῶς. ὃ υσχόλως 


This last passage, as well as many others, is very well suited, as it 
appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to shew the order in which the 
Evangelists succeeded each other. Mark adheres to Matthew (see 
Matth. 19: 16) much more closely than Luke does ; thus, among other 
things, he retains ὑστερεῖν where Luke uses ἕν σοὺ λείπει ,—00¢ where 
the latter uses διάδος,- ὕπαγε before ὅσα ἔχεις, while Luke omits it. 
But where Mark deviates from Matthew and pursues his own way, as, 
e. g. at the beginning and end of the passage, and in stating the com- 
mandments (which by a peculiar idiom appear in the future subjunc- 
tive), Luke coincides with Mark in the smallest particulars, and it is 
evident that he was one of those preceding writers mentioned by Luke 
in his Proeemium. 


We will now present in addition some specimens of passages found 
only in Mark and Luke: 


Mark 1: 24, 25. Luke 4: 34, 35. 


Fes (ie 
"Ea! ! τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοι, 
7 ᾿Ιησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; 


” i] cw ' 
Ea! τι ἡμῖν καὶ σοι, 
᾿Ιησοῦ ἹΝαζαρηνέ; ἢ 


"Hides ἀπολέσαι ἣ ἡμᾶς" 
οἶδά os τίς él, 
ὃ ἅγιος τοῦ ϑεοῦ ! 


Ἃ κ᾿ i > ~ cc? « 
Kai ἐπετίμησεν αὑτῷ ὁ ]Ιησοῦς, 


λέγων" Φιμώϑηπι, 
a. > ~ 
καὶ ἔξελϑε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 


Mark 10; 14, 15. 


"άφετε τὰ παιδία 
ἔρχεσϑαι πρός μὲ, 
καὶ μὴ κωλύετε αὐτά " 
τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν 
ἣ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
“Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, 
ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται 
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
ὡς παιδίον, 


οὗ μὴ εἰσέλϑη εἰς αὐτήν. 


"HUG se ἀπολέσαι ἡ ἡμᾶς" 
οἶδά σε τίς él, 
ὃ ἅγιος τοῦ ϑεοῦ! 
ba! ’ Ὁ. ἀν} ΜῈ ἘΣ - 
Kou ἐπετίμησεν αὑτῷ ὁ ]ησοῦς, 

λέγων " Φιμώϑητι, 
Ἀ We Ie 3 ω 
καὶ ξξελϑε ἐξ αὑτοῦ. 


Luke 18: 16, 17: 


, 
“Agere τὰ παιδία 
ἔρχεσϑαι πρός με, 
καὶ μὴ κωλύετε αὐτά" 
τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν 
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 
3 A ' cw 
Auny λέγω υμῖν, 
ral 1 ‘ tee 
ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται 
‘ ' ~ - 
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
ὡς παιδίον, 
> ‘ 3 , 3 32 , 
οὐ μὴ εἰσέλϑῃ εἰς αὑτὴν. 


OF THE NEW 
Mark 12: 38, 39, 40. 


᾿Αἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων, 
τῶν ϑελόντων 
ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν, 
καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς 
ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς, 
Hab πρωτοκαϑεδρίας ἐν ταῖς 
συναγωγαῖς, 
καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις * 
οὗ κατεσϑίοντες 
τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν, 
καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ 
προσευχόμενοι. 
Οὗτοι λήψονται 


TESTAMENT. 401 
Luke 20: 46, 47. 


᾿Απὸ τῶν γραμματέων, 
τῶν ϑελόντων 
περιπατεὶν ἐν στολαῖς, 
καὶ φιλούντων. ἀσπασμοὶ ς 
ἐν ταὶς ἀγοραῖς, 
καὶ πρωτοκαϑεδρίας ἐν ταῖς 
συνάγω) οἷς, 
καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δεΐπνοις " 
οὗ κατεσϑίουσι, 
τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν, 
καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ 
προσεύχονται. 
Οὗτοι λήψονται 


περισσότερον κρίμα. περισσότερον κρίμα. 


§ 88, 


Some, however, are disposed to ascribe these appearances, from 
which we infer that one writer had read the work of the other and 
transferred passages from it into his own, to very different causes. A 
learned man, of whom we have before made honorable mention, sup- 
poses that many of these passages were subsequently interpolated from 
one Gospel into the other in order to supply deficiencies.! 

How much probability there is in this supposition will, we hope, be 
shown by the following observations. (1.) No case is known in which 
two historians of the best days of either Greece or Rome agree in sub- 
stance and at the same time very frequently in phraseology. Even 
where one historian relies on the authority of another for the purport of | 
what he narrates, he invariably clothes the narration in his own lan- 
guage. For, educated in the schools of the grammarians, sophists, and 
declaimers, they prided themselves on expressing with elegance in an- 
other way what they borrowed from their predecessors. 

Not so with the orientals. They borrowed literally what they found 
in the works of their predecessors. The author of the book of Chronicles 
either transcribed directly from the books of Samuel and of Kings the 
passages in which he coincides with them, seldom making use of differ- 
ent phraseology or inserting a clause of his own; or else both writers 
drew literally from certain annals or other sources. The account of 
Joshua’s death and the character of the people of his time is transferred 
literally from the book of Joshua into that of Judges (Josh. 24: 29—32. 
Judges 2: 7—9). This account, it is true, isnot very long; the passages 
which the book of pt has in common with Isaiah are of greater im- 
portance (2 Kings 18: 17—87. Isaiah 36: 2—22. 2 Kings 19: 1—37. 
Isaiah 37: 1—the end); as also those which the same book has in com- 


1 Gratz, Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der ΠΗ ersten nn Evan zu erkla- 
ren. §. 36 seq.; and more recently, Hist. kritischer Kommentar ueber das Evan- 
gelium des Mattheus. Tubing. 1821. 


51 


402 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


mon with Jeremiah (2 Kings 25: 1—22. Jeremiah 52: 4—27). It is 
but seldom that the phraseology is altered or an additional clause in- 
serted. Literal transcribing is practised by the Arabians in their geo- 
graphical and historical works. Now, when we find a frequent occur- 
rence of identical phraseology in different Gospels, the authors of which 
we know to have been orientals and Hebrews, to imagine that the co- 
incidence arose from interpolations is to seek for another cause of what 
was only in accordance with the national custom in writing history- 
When, moreover, the Evangelists change the phraseology or insert a 
clause of their own, they do what the historians of their nation were in 
the habit of doing ; with this difference, that they were able to enrich 
the narrative from their own knowledge, and that, as they wrote in 
Greek, one possessed and consequently manifests greater skill than an- 
other in the use of that language. 

(2.) Now, as it is plain why they proceed in this manner, one often re- 
taining the words of another and then again employing his own lan- 
guage, so, moreover,no proof is afforded by the appearance of the Gos- 
pels that it was ever attempted to complete one from the other. At the 
very outset each retains its peculiar deficiency in point of completeness. 
Matthew has not taken a word of his history of Jesus’ youth from Luke, 
nor the latter from the former. No care of this kind can have been ex- 
ercised towards Mark in respect to this history ; for he is strikingly dis- 
tinguished from his companions by his total silence on the subject. 
One contains one portion of the history, another a different one, and 
Mark nothing at all of it. Passing from the beginning to the end of 
the Gospels, we find a similar case as respects what occurred after the 
resurrection. Luke has gone more into detail and is more complete 
than the others; Mark is remarkable for the abrupt termination of his 
book, which ends as suddenly as though it had not been fully finished, 
and yet nothing has been added from Matthew or Luke to complete it, 
and nothing from Luke to supply Matthew’s deficiencies. Such are the 
appearances at the beginning and end of each; that which intervenes 
possesses the same character. Luke has much of importance which 
we seek in vain in the rest. This has remained peculiar to him, and 
no one has interpolated any of his journeys and parables into the other 
Evangelists. A considerable portion of his history has, as we shall 
soon be convinced (ᾧ 41), been entirely lost, and yet no one has under- 
taken to fill up the consequent chasm by the aid of the other Gospels. 
Mark has omitted some narratives contained in Matthew ; no interpola- 
tor has attempted to supply them. These prominent distinctive traits 
im each appear still untouched, and constitute an irrefragable proof that 
the ancient world never thought of completing the Gospels by means of 
interpolation. 

(3.) When, at what period, was this interpolation undertaken ? None 
of the Gospels were written before the latter half of the first century. 
It is not to be supposed that they were seized upon directly after their 
appearance under the very eyes of their authors, and subjected to this 
process of interpolation. And when attempts of this kind did begin to 
be made, they could be imparted merely to individual Mss., and could 
only gradually extend themselves in a limited sphere, in a particular re- 
gion. All interpolations must have been confined to a particular dis- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 403 


trict of country, and could at most merely have gained admission into 
many Mss. in that district, before the period when the Recensions were 
made, and thus could never have attained universal currency. ‘This, 
according to the natural course of things, must have been the fate of 
such interpolations. But even granting, in opposition to all observations 
of this character, that they did become universally known, and that all 
countries and nations showed themselves ready to alter their copies in 
conformity with the interpolated ones, and to destroy their ancient Mss. 
by means of which the earlier text would be propagated, and likewise 
that this was the case within a short period ; at the close of the 2d cen- 
tury there had been a Syriac version executed in Asia, called the Pes- 
chito, in the west Latin versions, and not long after the Sahidic for 
Upper Egypt, all of which contain precisely what we are called upon to 
regard as interpolations. In what way could this uniformity have been 
produced in so short a time in such various and distant countries ? 

‘4. Not, however, to leave us wholly in the dark as to the manner in 
which these interpolations originated, at least in part, the public reading 
of the Gospels is stated to have been the cause of them. In reading, 
it is said, one Evangelist was sometimes connected with another and a 
lesson formed from the two.!| Now if only one Gospel had been read, 
it would be adinissible to suppose that passages might have been trans- 
ferred into it from another, for the sake of obtaining a more complete 
narrative than was presented by the single Gospel. But each had its 
turn ; no Gospel was debarred from being read, and consequently no 
motive existed for transferring to one of them what did not belong to 
it. On the other hand, the regular extent of the lessons would have 
been altered by such aprocedure. ‘The ancient lessons were long, com- 
prehending several chapters, xegodoea, τίτλους ; unnecessary additions 
would have rendered them still longer, and the time appropriated to 
reading would be necessarily exceeded. 

According to this representation, the interpolations were made inci- 
dentally, and not from any settled purpose accompanied by an ardent 
endeavor to extend them. So much the rather, then, must their exten- 
sion have been gradual and slow; so much the longer time must have 
been required for their diffusion in foreign countries ; and their univer- 
sal reception, when surrendered to the operation of chance alone, must 
have required an almost interminable period ; it could by no means have 
been effected in a short space of time. 

5. An hypothesis of such a nature that its subject belongs toa period 
of antiquity not reached by any Mss. or even versions, possesses the ad- 
vantage that they cannot refute it. Denial, it is true, is likewise very 
easy in such a case; but to support the denial is very difficult, as the 
topics for such support are but few, viz. internal grounds alone. These 
therefore should be the more relied on. Where an interpolation has been 
made, the following are the most important evidences of it. ‘The first 
is a want of verbal connexion. Wien anumber of sentences have no 


1 Dr. Gratz, Krit.-Hist. Komment. tiber Mattheus, [. Th. p. 531, 40, 68. IT. 
Th. p.500. The catalogues of church-lessons prefixed to Matthai’s edition of 
the New Testament cannot, however, be adduced in proof, inasmuch as they are 
taken almost wholly from Evangeliaria, and these contain small reading-lessons, 
like Pericope, which are of later origin. 


404 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


connexion with the context, at either their beginning or end, an inter- 
polation may be supposed, for in such a case it is possible. Yet this 
reason would be insuflicient, if the circumstance occurred in the work 
of a writer who was not in the habit of preserving strict verbal connex- 
ion; or if the want of verbal connexion was supplied by one in the 
thought. A want of connexion in the thought would carry the critic 
further than a mere possibility. If a series of sentences were inconsis- 
tent with what preceded and followed, and the inconsistency could not 
be done away by any valid interpretation, we should be led to pronounce 
that some foreign matter had been interpolated. If in such a series of 
sentences a want of connexion in the language, likewise, could be 
shown, the proof of interpolation would be irrefragable. 

Let us now test the alleged interpolations by these principles, in order 
to learn how far they are corroborated by them. ‘That which is said to 
have been transferred from Luke into Matthew, or from Matthew into 
Luke, occurs in the same situation in both and in the same connexion. 
No interpolation therefore, can be detected on this score; the receiver 
and the giver appear precisely alike. Where a number of sentences in 
Luke are not made to occupy a corresponding place in Matthew, but 
are connected with different facts by the two writers, they suit the con- 
text in both Gospels, at least so well as to forbid us to say anything fur- 
ther than that they occur in a more natural situation in one than in the 
other. Little can be said of variations in phraseology, as the sentences 
agree almost always literally. But whenever there does occur even a 
trifling difference of this kind, it becomes still more evident that the 
language of Matthew was not transferred from Luke, or vice versd ; 
but that each followed his own peculiar style of expression. Luke gen- 
erally evinces a taste for purity and elegance ; Matthew on the contrary 
is more harsh and uses Hebrew idioms, as in the supposed interpola- 
tion, Matth. 8: 2}. ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελϑεῖν καὶ ϑάψαι, Luke 
9: 59. ἐπίτρεψόν, μοι ἀπελθόντι πρῶτον ϑάψαι; and likewise Matth. 
11:8. οἱ τὰ Mak αχὰ φοροῦντες ἐν τοῖς οἴχοις τῶν βασιλέων εἰσί, Luke 
ΠΕ 25. οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφὴ ὑπαάρχοντὲς ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις 
εἰσί. From such cases we should be led to conclude that when one for- 
sook the phraseology of the other he expressed himself in his own way, 
rather than that any interpolation took place. 

Whence now are we to infer an interpolation, if we cannot make it 
out from any want of verbal connexion, nor from a want of unity in the 
train of thought, nor from any difference in language? And if there 
be no ground to infer it, what becomes of such a supposition ? 

Semler’s hypothesis of conformations, or attempts to harmonize, differs 
but little from the preceding ; this has been lately brought into notice 
again and recommended by a writer of uncommon erudition.' Jt dif- 
fers merely as to the motives which gave occasion to attempts which 
are of the same kind on both hypotheses. As according to the former 
supposition one Gospel was interpolated from another in order to ren- 
der it complete, according to this the same thing was done from a desire 
to make them consonant with each other. 


1 Bertholdt, Hist.-Krit. Einleit. in die Schriften des A. und N. T. III. Th. ὃ 
329. p. 1249 seq. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 405 


But, if any persons were really induced to such an attempt, they had 
no very good reason for commencing with such passages as it is alleged 
that they did, passing by passages which called loudly for the employ- 
ment of such an expedient, inasmuch as from them sceptics and oppo- 
nents could charge the Gospels with real or apparent contradictions, or 
contest their historical veracity. Yet the passages of this character, 
which contained real or apparent contradictions (considered real by the 
enemies of the Gospels), have remained untouched. Rather than ven- 
ture by a few strokes of the pen to harmonize these passages, the an- 
cients suffered the objections against the Gospels to remain in them, 
and exposed themselves to the peril of not being able to answer them. 

As that which was of most pressing importance has not been done, 
much less would they have troubled themselves about what was of no 
consequence. And admitting that without any sensible necessity they 
amused themselves with the employment of harmonizing, the harmony 
is but partial in the very passages for which the hypothesis is framed. 

This theory has for its object the explanation of the same facts as the 
preceding. Hence the observations before made are applicable like- 
wise here. 


§ 39. 


But why is it, since the later of these writers is said to have had the 
earlier before him, and to have incorporated entire passages from him in- 
to his own book, that he did not transfer them word for word? that in some 
clauses these Gospels agree to the letter, then deviate from each other, 
then return and proceed together? This question is asserted to be un- 
answerable without recourse to original Hebrew Gospels and Greek ver- 
sions of them from which our historians drew. ‘This inquiry has been 
the alleged occasion, and at the same time the foundation, of many well- 
known hypotheses. What then is the cause of such variations? The 
answer is obvious. These writers did not, in making use of each other, 
give up their individuality. 

Their independence has been taken away and they have been deni- 
ed the liberty of selecting in place of a particular expression one which 
was more habitual to them, or seemed more apposite; and instead 
of this they have had imputed to them unskilfulness in translating, 
which it was hoped would account better for the differences which are 
found between them. When this imputation was found not to serve the 
purpose intended, the modicum of skill in translation before accorded to 
them, was tacitly denied them, and they were provided with ready-made 
versions of the original Gospels, in which these variations already exist- 
ed, and which they are said to have transcribed. Thus by degrees 
they have been degraded to the rank of mere copyists, as though it were 
contrary to all principles of criticism to suppose them to have had any 
free-will of their own. 

Yet these variations maintain a peculiar character throughout each 
Gospel; and this circumstance shows clearly that they were designed 
and were the work of an independent hand. In Mark the clauses in- 
serted tend to display concisely the feelings of the persons concerned, 
their demeanor and appearance. The single verse Mark 10: 16 con- 


406 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


tains a complete picture ; see on the contrary Matth. 19: 15. To Matth. 
19: 20, Mark has subjoined after vE0 rt Os ou the words: ὁ δὲ ᾿ησοὺς 

ι ξιβλέψας αὐτῷ, ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν (10: 21), which impart a 
natural beauty and vivacity to the narrative. In the same chapter (10: 
14. Comp. Matth. 19: 14), he adds a momentary burst of feeling, nya: 
νάκτησε, καὶ εἶπεν; so Mark 8:12. Matth. 12: 39; and in another 
place: ὁ δὲ ᾿Πησοῦς ᾿σπλαγχνισϑείς, Mark 1: 41. Comp. Matth. 8: 3; 

/:4/Mark 3-5. Matth. 12: 10, 11, καὶ περιβλεψάμενος μὲτ ὀργῆς; and 
ἢ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηϑεῖσα καὶ τρέμουσα, δ: 33. Matth. 9: 22; ἀποβαλὼν 
τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ, ἀναστὰς 7AM, 10: 50. Matth. 20: 32; 9: 30 and 
26. Matth. 17: 18; Mark 10: 22. Matth. 90: 17, and many other like 
cases. It is not our purpose to consider in this place how he could 
make additions thus, not having seen any of these things himself; but 
it is a satisfaction to discover here again the voucher of the author, and 
to find a new confirmation of the fact that Mark did not derive his ac- 
counts from a second or third hand, but wrote down the statements of 
an eye-witness who preserved a vivid remembrance of the past, and 
gave some finishing touches to the narrative as lively as though that past 
were to his imagination present. Sometimes he called to mind the 
particular Aramean words employed by our Lord in working a miracle ; 
ase.g. Talitha koumi, i. 6. maid arise, and that to the deaf and dumb 
person, E:phphatha, 1. e. be opened. (Mark 5: 41. 7: 34). 

In altering the phraseology merely, in adding words, exchanging some 
for others, amplifying sentences or inserting clauses, he shows his anx- 
iety to be perspicuous and definite. This anxiety caused him to add to 
Matth. 3:6, after ἐν τῷ “ορδάνη the word ποταμῷ ἢ (1:5), and to τὸ ) δῶρον 
in Matth. 8: 4. περὶ τοῦ καϑαρισμοῦ. (1: 44.) In 1: 42, he inserts é¢nov- 
τος αὐτοῦ to denote the instantaneousness of the result. Inthe 2d chap- 
ter, verses 8, 16, 18, and 21, there are changes and amplifications for 
the sake of perspicuity. Verse 3: 30 is an explanatory addition to 
Matth. 12: 31, 82; as 6: 18 explains Matth. 14: 4. οὐχ ἔξεστί σου 
ἔχειν αὐτήν. So Mark 8: 19, οὐκ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν is explanatory of 
Matth. 15: 17 ; and Mark 8: 19, 20, πλήρεις κλασμάτων of Matth. 16: 
9, 10. πόσους κοφίνουρ. Mark 12: 26, ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου is explanatory ; 
as well as 13:3, κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ, chili gives us to understand 
what caused a renewal of the conversation. So too 14: 12, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα 
ἔϑυον, compared with Matth. 26:17; also Mark 14: 56, 57, compared 
with Matth. 26: 60, 61; and περικαλύπτειν τὸ πρόσωπον in 14: 65, 
without which the word προφήτευσον in Matth. 26: 65 would be unin- 
telligible, etc. etc. 

In Luke we perceive an endeavor to be peculiarly. concise in his 
language. Markl: 22. Luke 4: 32, OTE ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἣν ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ: 
Mark 1: 28. Luke 4: 37, καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο ὁ ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς 
πάντα τῦπον τῆς περιχώρου; Mark 2: 15, 16. Luke 5: 29, 30; 
Mark 3: 31—35. Luke 8: 19—21; Mark 4: 5—9. Luke 8: 6--8; 
Mark 9: 6. Luke 9: 33. μη) εἰδώς ὃ λέγει; Mark 4: 30—382. Luke 13: 
18, 19; Mark δ: 2—15. Luke 8: 27—34; Mark 11:15, 16, 17. Luke 
19: 45, ‘46; Mark 13: 1, 2. Luke 21: 5, 6; Mark 14: 16. Luke 22: 13. 
ἀπεχϑθμθεῦ δὲ εὗρον ἡὔϑος εἴρηκεν αὐτοῖς. 

Luke is further distinguished by his attention to elegance of diction. 
Tow harsh is the following clause in Mark 12: 38, των ϑελόντων ἐν 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 407 


στολαῖς περιπατεῖν, καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς 1 Luke inserts a 
single word : καὶ φιλούντων ασπασμούς, and the sentence is easy ὃ and 
flowing. The passage Matth. 8.9, ἄνϑρωπός εἶμι ὑπὸ ἐξυυσίαν, ἔχων 
Um ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, is not only harsh but obscure, and misled 
some of the old translators. Luke remedies it completely by inserting 
one word, ὑπὸ é ξουσίαν τασσύμενος, {7:8} The expression in 
Matth. 21: 26, πάντες yao ἔχουσι τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ὡς προφήτην, is not 
Greek ; Mark (11: 32) attempts to remedy it; Luke deviates from both 
for the | purpose of giving a Greek turn to the clause: ὁ λαος---πεπεισμἕ- 
νος yao ἔστιν, Ἰωάννην προφήτην εἶναι (20: 6). So too he alters 
Matth. 11: 8, of τὰ μαλακὰ “φοροῦντες, to the advantage of its accu- 
racy and elegance : οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδύξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες. 
(7: 25). For ὑπηρέτης (Matth. 5:25) Luke puts (12: 58) the legal 
term mgaxrwo. The construction of Mark 12: 44 is rendered more 
conformable to Greek usage by Luke (21: 4): αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ὑστερή- 
ματος αὑτῆς ἅπαντω TOY βίον ov εἰχὲν ἔβαλε, Sometimes, too, he 
avoids a Hebraism. Mark 8: 36, ἐὰν χε οδήσῃ τὸν κόσμον Gow “αὶ ζη- 
peor τὴν δλὺς αὐτοῦ, is given by Luke (9: 25), κερδήσας τὸν κόο- 
μον ὅλον, ἑαυτὸν (ἘΣ =) δὲ ἀπολέσας, ἢ ζημεωϑ εἰς ; Mark 12: 2G 21, 
22, οὐκ ἀφῆκε σπέρμα. Luke 20: 28, 29, ἀπέϑανεν ἄτεκνος; Matth. 8: 
27, ἐθαύμασαν. Mark 4: 41, ἐφοβήθησαν φύβον μέγαν. Luke 8: 25, 
φοβηϑέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν, not only avoiding the Hebraism, but ele- 
gantly connecting the two words. 

The constantly recurring εὐϑέως, καὶ εὐϑέως, is one of Mark’s 
striking peculiarities; the word παρχρῆμα instead, is not much less 
striking i in Luke, both in the Gospel and Acts. So the constant use of 
the particle τότε is a peculiarity of Matthew. Among Matthew’s pe- 
culiarities, too, we may reckon the use of ἀποκρεϑείς without any an- 
tecedent question, Matth. 11: 25. 17: 4. 22: 1. 26: 69. 27: 21. 28:5; 
as, likewise, the perpetually occurring ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, while Luke uses 
only "λέγω ὑμῖν, OF ἀληϑῶς λέγω ὑμῖν, Luke 11: 27. 12: 44. 21: 3, and 
én ἀληϑείας λέγω ὑμῖν (4: 24). The individuality of these writers is 
so clearly apparent that no great pains are necessary to make it con- 
ceivable how in the course of coincident passages one could alter the 
phraseology, insert words and brief clauses, and in short follow his own 
inclination and habits. 


§ 40. 


As to the succession of events, Luke coincides with Mark against the 
arrangement of Matthew, and this confirms the idea that Mark revised 
Matthew with reference to his chronology, and made it a point to ob- 
serve more strictly the order of actual succession, since Luke, in pro- 
posing his plan at the commencement of his book, reckons the obser- 
vance of the natural order as one of his duties. 


408 


THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


First Journey. 


Luke. 


I. Jesus goes to Capernaum and 
heals a demoniac. 

II. Enters Simon’s house. 

III. Enters Simon’s ship, who 
had toiled all night and taken 
nothing. 

IV. Heals a leper. 


Mark. 
I. Jesus goes to Capernaum and 


heals a demoniac. 
II. Enters Simon’s house. 


11. Heals a leper. 


Seconp Journey. 


Luke. 


I. Four men bring one sick of 
the palsy. 

II. Jesus calls Levi. 

III. The disciples of John fast. 

IV. The disciples of Jesus go 
through the corn-fields. 


Mark. 


I. Four men bring one sick of 
the palsy. 

IJ. Jesus calls Levi. 

III. The disciples of John fast. 

IV. The disciples of Jesus go 
through the corn-fields. 


Tuirp JouRNEY. 


Luke. 


I. A man with a withered hand 
is healed. 

II. Jesus chooses the twelve. 

III. He cures the centurion’s 
servant. 

IV. He goes to Nain; restores 
the widow’s son to life. 


V. The disciples of John in- 


quire whether Jesus is he that 
should come. 

VI. The woman a Was ἃ sin- 
ner anoints Jesus in the Phari- 
see’s house. 

VII. Jesus heals demoniacs; 
utters the parable of the sower. 

VIII. His mother and brethren 
arrive. 


IX. He sleeps in the storm ; ar- 
rives at Gadaris. Story of the de- 
moniac. 

X. Jesus heals the daughter of 
Jairus. 


Mark. 


J. A man with a withered hand 
is healed. 
II. Jesus chooses the twelve. 


III. Jesus is charged with heal- 
ing through Beelzebub. 

‘IV. His mother and brethren 
arrive ; he utters the parable of the 
sower. 

V. He sleeps in the storm ; ar- 
rives at Gadaris. Story of the de- 
moniac. 

VI. Jesus heals the danger of 
Jairus- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 409 


In the first Journey, event No. III is wholly peculiar to Luke, and not 
touched upon by Mark; as likewise No. IV in the third Journey. The 
incidents III and V in the third Journey are related by Matthew ; 
Mark, however, removed them from their position and did not insert 
them in any other place. The procedure of Luke, who has connected 
them with wholly different occurrences and chronological circumstan- 
ces, completely justifies Mark in removing them from their connexion 
in Matthew. Event No. VI is repeated by John (12: 1 seq.), who 
unites the circumstances mentioned separately by Mark and Luke, and 
even their phraseology, into one whole ; whence it is evident that the nar- 
rative in Mark 14: 3 and that of Luke 7:36 have reference to the same 
event. 

The accusation that Jesus healed through Beelzebub is mentioned 
by Luke at a later stage of the history (11: 14) ; but in the place it oc- 
cupies in Mark, Luke speaks in general language of the cure of demoni- 
acs by the miraculous power of Jesus. Mark has united the parables 
of the sower and the grain of mustard seed ; Luke separates them and 
presents the latter in a different connexion (13: 17—21). 

As to the occurrence in regard to the centurion, he exhibits the ground 
of his assigning it the position which it occupies ; for he designates the 
time by saying that after this had happened Jesus went ἐν τή ἑξῆς, on 
the following day, to Nain (7: 11). ‘The question of John’s disciples, 
which stands completely isolated in Matthew (11: 2), is connected by 
Luke with the restoration of the widow’s son to life at Nain; and this 
occurrence is represented as the occasion of John’s sending his disci- 
ples to make the inquiry (Luke 7: 17). It is clear also from the an- 
swer of Jesus, even as given in Matthew, that the miracle of raising the 
dead had already taken place; for Jesus expressly refers to it (Matth. 
11:5): Say, the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lep- 
ers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, &c. Luke, 
therefore, was guided by chronological reasons in giving these incidents 
the position which they occupy in his book. He introduced anew the 
facts which Mark took out of their connexion in Matthew and neglect- 
ed to insert elsewhere; but he presents them in a different, viz. their 
real, order. 

The same is the case, too, as to an occurrence which is inaccurately 
assigned by Matthew to the early part of Jesus’ ministry (8: 19), and 
narrated directly after the visit to Peter’s house. The incident referred 
to is, that a certain man was desirous of following Jesus, but was 
first informed of the difficulties in the way of such a design. Mark 
has omitted this account, too, as well as the preceding, because it had 
not its proper position in the order of time. Luke, however, designates 
the place and period of the occurrence, removing it far along in the his- 
tory to the time when Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem through Sa- 
maria (9:51—58). Again, his separating the parables of the sower 
and the grain of mustard seed, (which seem to have been united by 
Mark on account of their similarity), and assigning them distinct situa- 
tions in his book, can be explained only by his attention to strict chronolo- 
gical order. On the other hand, however, one fact (7: 37 seq.), the story 
of the woman that was a sinner who anointed Jesus, is assigned too ear- 
ly a position, as we may convince ourselves from comparing John. 

52 


410 “THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 
In the Fourth Journey they coincide with each other, as may be seer 
from the following comparison. 


Luke. Mark. 


I. Jesus calls the twelve togeth- I. Jesus calls the twelve togeth- 
er. 

If. Herod believes that John is 
risen. ° 
III. The disciples of Jesus re- 
turn from their mission. 

IV. Five thousand are fed. 


er. 

II. Herod believes that John is 
risen. 

III. The disciples of Jesus re- 
turn from their mission. 

IV. Five thousand are fed. 


§ 41. 


Here, however, Luke omits a whole chain of events which occur in 
both Matthew and Mark. Soon after he joins them again, and accompa- 
nies them step by step. 

The occurrences omitted are the following: The disciples of Jesus 
are on the sea, their master appears to them, goes to them into the ship, 
and they arrive at Gennesareth (Mark 6: 45. Matth. 14:23). The 
Pharisees find fault with the disciples of Jesus for eating with un- 
washen hands (Mark 7: 1). Jesus comes into the borders of Tyre 
and Sidon, and heals the daughter of the believing Canaanitess (7: 24). 
Jesus heals a deaf and dumb person with spittle (7:31). Four thou- 
sand are fed (8: 1 seq.) The Pharisees require a sign of Jesus ; the dis- 
ciples are charged to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; a blind man 
is healed (8: 22). All this is wanting in Luke ; but henceforth he pro- 
ceeds with the others. 

Luke. Mark. 

I. Jesus asks, Whom do men say 
that Tam? 

II. Is transfigured on the mount. 

III. The disciples are not able 
to heal a demoniac. 


I. Jesus asks, Whom do men say 
that I am? 

IJ. Is transfigured on the mount. 

III. The disciples are not able 
to heal a demoniac. 

IV. They dispute who should) IV. They dispute who should 
be greatest in the kingdom of be greatest in the kingdom of 
God. God 


V. John relates that a person is 
casting out devils in the name of 
Jesus. 


_ V. John relates that a person is 
casting out devils in the name of 
Jesus. 


It is contrary to the custom of this writer wholly to omit any event; 
he always introduces again those narratives in Matthew which are ex- 
cluded by Mark, and assigns them ἃ different position in the course of 
the history. Hence the phenomenon we have mentioned is not to be 
explained from this quarter. | 

On further examination as to the portion of the history wanting in 
Luke, we find that he has removed the occurrence in relation to the re- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 411 


quirement of a sign, and placed it further along at a late period, in 11: 
29, and the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees still further 
along (12: 1), in a different connexion. 

After these events were separated from the rest, the series of occurren- 
ces found in the other Evangelists and wanting in Luke concluded with 
the feeding of the four thousand; the event which immediately pre- 
ceded this series was the feeding of the five thousand. Now Luke 
connects with the miracle of the five thousand (YJ: 12 and 18) what in @ 
the other Evangelists does not occur till after the later miracle of 
the four thousand (Matth. 15: 32, and 16:18. Mark 8:1, 27). We 
have, therefore, a Homoioteleuton to explain this phenomenon. 

That this portion of the history was very early lost may be inferred 
from the fact that it is not preserved ina single Ms. Had copies been ex- 
tensively circulated previously, the mistake would not have been univer- 
sal, and the portion whichis wanting must have been preserved in some 
country or in some Ms. at least. 

We have probably lost in this way, not only what we are informed 
of by his predecessors (in that case the loss would be of no conse- 
quence), but likewise some of the events of Jesus’ life, as well as in- 
structions given by him, with which Luke often enriches his biography 
from his own resources. 

In the Acts he tells us of a saying of our Lord (20: 35, δεῖ μνημο- 
VEVELY τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ἰησοῦ, ὅτε αὐτὸς εἶπε" μακάριόν ἐστι Ot- 
δόναι μᾶλλον ἢ λαμβανεινὺ), respecting which he is silent in his Gospel ; 
and it was certainly connected with some memorable event, parable or 
discourse, and would have been a peculiar ornament to his history. It 
appears to me more probable that this passage was contained in the por- 
tion of the history which is lost, and suffered the same fate with it, than 
that he forgot or omitted it. 

We know that there are still found in the oldest fathers sentences 
for which we search in vain in our _present historical books: 6. g., one 
in the Epistle to Barnabas (c. 8), οὕτω φησὶ, οἱ ϑέλοντες μὲ ἰδεῖν, καὶ 
ἅψασϑαί μου τῆς Sa Ἢ ὀφείλουσι ϑλίβοντες καὶ παϑόντες λαβεῖν 
μὲ; but I do not venture to affirm that they were derived from the lost 
portion of Luke’s original work. 


§ 42. 


After the omission of this portion of the history, the Evangelists 
unite again, and Luke proceeds in harmony with Mark, as is shown by 
the table given in the preceding section. But this extends no further 
than is there represented. 'Thenceforward Luke is generally indepen- 
dent of the rest of the Evangelists, and introduces us to entirely new 
and unknown scenes. 

All the other Evangelists here commence the account of the last 
journey to Jerusalem; Luke proceeds otherwise. He informs us three 
times that Jesus purposed to go to Jerusalem, and each time describes 
the journey itself a little way. But while we are thinking to see Jesus 
soon in Jerusalem, we unexpectedly find him elsewhere, and in fact 
further away from Jerusalem than at the commencement of his jour- 
ney. 


412 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


In 9: 51] he says: “‘ When the time was come that he should be 
received up, he steadfastly set his face to goto Jerusalem.” Jesus then 
passes through Samaria, which was on the road travelled by the pilgrim 
from Galilee to Jerusalem. In Samaria his disciples wish to call 
down fire from heaven (52—56). The narrative is then continued, till 
at length Jesus arrives at the dwelling-place of Ma{th@se and Mary, 
which according to the other Evangelists was Bethany (10: 38). Of 
Jerusalem itself Luke says not a word, but speaks generally of his 
abode ἐν τόπῳ zevi (11: 1), and tells usof a conversation respecting a 
certain occurrence which to all appearance happened in Jerusalem at 
the feast (13: 1). 

Jesus is unexpectedly again in Galilee, and commences anew a jour- 
ney thence to Jerusalem (13: 22, ἦν πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς ‘/sgovoa- 
Aju.) He proceeds onward, Luke relating a multitude of discourses 
and events.! For the second time, however, he does not lead our Lord 
to the place to which he was going; but when he should have arrived 
there, he abruptly tells us of another purposed journey to the holy city. 

He takes the twelve and says, Behold we go up to Jerusalem (18: 
31). He then proceeds along the Jordan, and arrives by way of Jeri- 
cho (18: 35)-at the capital, the scene of his death, which is narrated 
with its accompanying circumstances. 

We have here only accounts of journeys, without learning their issue, 
or what occurred in the place whither they were directed ; in fact with- 
out learning whether Jesus reached the place of his destination. It 
would seem, or rather it is plain, that we have here no connected histo- 
ry, but detached fragments, or if the word be preferred, collectanea, 
which the writer presented as his investigations furnished them. ‘Thus 
much may we say at present respecting the general plan of this book, 
and we now pass to consider the work more particularly. 


§ 43. 


In the narratives which are common to Matthew and Mark, Luke 
coincides with Mark in the representation of minute circumstances. In 
the story of the woman with the issue of blood, Mark places the mira- 
cle in a peculiar light, by informing us of the woman’s long and fruitless 
endeavors to get rid of the malady, her expenditure and the efforts of phy- 
sicians for the purpose ; he adds the dialogue that arose between Jesus and 
his disciples respecting the woman’s touching him; describes with mi- 
nuteness the woman’s behaviour, her terror and confusion, etc. Luke 
also relates the occurrence with all these circumstances, and in descri- 
bing the woman’s terror uses phraseology very similar to that of Mark. 

Take the story of the daughter of Jairus, which is connected with the 
preceding. In Matth. 9: 18, the ruler says immediately on his arrival : 
My daughter is even now dead. In Mark 5: 23 seq. she is represented 
as only at the point of death ; and after the incident respecting the wo- 
man with the issue of blood, messengers arrive who announce her death. 


1 18:11 does not begin a new journey; but, as the words clearly mean, 
merely continues the one undertaken : ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ πορεύεσϑαι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν 
Ἰερουσαλήμ. This was to be remarked so that no doubt might arise from the 
passage. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 413 


On this information Jesus encourages the father, etc. Luke repre- 
sents the whole in the same way (8: 40 seq). Comp. Matth. 8: 1—5. and 
Mark 1: 40.—end. Luke 5: 12—17.—Matth. 9: 1—8. Mark 2: 3—13. 
Luke 5: 18—27.—Matth. 17: 14—19. Mark 9: 14—30. Luke 9: 37— 
43, and many other passages. 

The precise designations of numbers in Mark, who pays more atten- 
tion to them than Matthew, are adopted by Luke, who thus confirms 
their accuracy. In the story of the demoniacs at Gadaris (Matth. 8: 
28), Matthew mentions two, while Mark mentions but one; and Luke 
follows the example of the latter (8: 27, Mark 5: 2). The account of 
the two blind men on the road to Jericho (Matth. 22: 30) is made by 
Mark to refer to but one (Mark 10: 46) ; so likewise by Luke (18: 35). 


ᾧ 44. 


He has sometimes illustrated a narrative by new circumstances and 
been more definite in its detail (e. g. Matth. 8: 19—23. Luke 9: 57— 
end.—Matth. 8: 5—11. Luke 7: 2—9); and has here and there cor- 
rected certain statements of his predecessors. Matthew and Mark 
have represented the period of time, from the discourse which ends with 
the words: λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰσί τινὲς τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, οἵτινες OU 
μὴ γεύσονταν ϑανάτου (Matth. 16:28. Mark 9: 1) to the transfigura- 
tion, as six days; while Luke makes it eight (9: 27, 28). 

Matthew relates (27: 44), that the malefactors who were crucified 
with our Lord reviled him ; Mark permitted this to remain as he found 
it in his predecessor (15: 33). But Luke inquired into the circumstan- 
ces anew, and informs us that one of them rebuked the other for daring 
to revile Jesus (23: 39—43). This was remarked by Manes, the well- 
known heretic of the third century, with the design of fastening the im- 
putation of discrepancy on the Evangelists.! 

Matthew tells us of but one angel who addressed the women when they 
visited the sepulchre (28: 2). Mark follows Matthew (16: 5). The 
account given by Luke runs differently, for according to him there 
were two (24: 4); and John so distinctly confirms the accuracy of this 
ΤΡ, ee as even to designate the place in which each was seen 
(20: 12). 

The supposition made to reconcile these different accounts, which is 
founded on a common original Hebrew or Syriac text out of which they 
were all translated, is a proof to us that this theory may indeed afford 
opportunity for philological ingenuity, but can give little assistance in a 


case of real perplexity. If the original contained io aes it is true 


; but, though it is easy to see 


a a a» 
or 

Ss { πον 

how one writer might have rendered it ἀνήρ and another ἄνδρες, it is not 

so easy to see how Luke could have translated δύο ἀνδρες. Not to men- 


that it'might be read fis 


1 In Epiphan. Her. LXVI.n. 40. Kad γὰρ εἷς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν λέγει; ὅτε οἱ 
λῃσταὶ οἱ συνεσταυρομένοι ἐβλασφημοῦν αὐτόν. Ὃ δὲ ἄλλος οὐχὶ ὅτε μόνον οὐκ 
ἐβλασφημοῦν οἱ ἀμφότεροι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπολογίαν τοῦ ἑνὸς σημαίνει. Καὶ γὰρ 
ἐπετίμα τῷ ἑτέρῳ καὶ ἔλεγεν, ὅτε οὐ φοβῇ συὶ τὸν ϑεὸν, ὅτε ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματὶ 
ἐσμεν, οὗτος δὲ αγιος οὐδὲν ἐποίησε; κι τ. ἢ 


414 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


tion, that even supposing all verbs to have been as participles in statu 
emphatico, there must have been in Matthew a noun which, if the origi- 
nal were not obscure from set purpose, would have contained some- 
thing definite as to the singular or plural number ; not to dwell on this, 
the relative pronouns (77 ἰδέα αὐτοῦ and ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ) are decisive as 
to the number. 

It is plain that Luke has improved upon his predecessors in this case ; 
but he has not contradicted them. With regard to Matthew we have 
been sufficiently explicit, and have shown from his plan, that, neglecting 
minor circumstances, he has given a summary narration of facts to 
prove that Jesus fulfilled what was foretold in the Old ‘Testament. 
There would be an evident contradiction of Mark, likewise, unless we 
were in judging to take into account his plan and the origin of his 
book. Mark wrote what Peter delivered in his discourses. He noted 
down what the Apostle said in his expositions of Matthew’s Gospel, and 
_ put the whole together in a work which appeared as his own. When 
the Apostle added nothing to a passage, a word or an occurrence ; 
when, accidentally or otherwise, he omitted to make any observation, 
the passage remained as it was in Matthew ; and Mark, who according 
to the ancients confined himself to his teacher’s information, and wrote 
and published only that, is neither guilty of falsehood nor mistake in his 
narrative. Luke is indeed more accurate, but this is all; and even the 
unfriendly critic can never charge Mark with deviations from truth or 
contradiction of the rest. 


§ 45. 


Such events as were related with all their minute circumstances by 
his predecessors, he often condenses as did Mark, and touches upon 
them but slightly. Such e.g. is the narrative in Luke 9: 46; Matthew 
had already related it with sufficient minuteness (18: 1), and Mark had 
made an addition of several minor circumstances to his account, which 
rendered it more accurate and graphic. Luke, then, may have thought 
it superfluous to dilate further on an event which was exhausted, and 
concerning which he had nothing new to offer. Not wishing barely to 
repeat what had been already said, and unwilling to omit any thing, he 
gives a brief notice of it, concluding with the language of Mark. Luke 
9: 48. Mark 9: 37. See also Luke 9: 7—9, compared with Matth. 14: 
1, and Mark 6: 14.—Luke 10: 25—29, compare Mark 12: 28—35. 

Jesus warns his disciples (Matth. 16: 5 and Mark 8: 14) to beware 
of the leaven of the Pharisees. The warning was misunderstood, till 
Jesus more clearly explained his meaning. Now this occurrence ap- 
pears at length in the first two Evangelists ; Luke, however, notices it in 
but few words, thus showing that he presumed it to be well known, and 
that it properly belonged to this period ; and instead of giving the debate 
at length, presents the decision of it at once. Even this, indeed, is ab- 
breviated, for all he says respecting it is: He began to say unto his dis- 
ciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hy- 
pocrisy (Luke 12: 1). 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 415 


§ 46. 


The analysis we have made of the three works on the lineage and 
ministry of our Lord, has now put us in a condition to. meet the hy- 
pothesis by which a distinguished scholar has attempted to explain the 
origin of the Gospels; the principal position of which is, that Mark com- 
piled his work from the commentaries of Matthew and Luke,! and con- 
sequently did not write till after them. 

Let us consider the arguments adduced in its support. The agree- 
ment of Matthew and Mark in selecting the same events from the abun- 
dant materials afforded them for differing from each other in this re- 
spect, certainly proves that these two Evangelists did not write indepen- 
dently of each other, but determines nothing concerning the priority of 
either. 

What is alleged, too, in support of the other position in regard to 
Luke, viz. that he and Mark generally agree in the detailed representa- 
tion of facts and differ from Matthew, is very true; but it is equally as 
proper to infer from this that Luke copied from Mark as the opposite. 
Supposing Mark to have made Matthew and Luke the basis of his work 
and to have aimed to unite both into one, he would have proceeded very 
differently ; or to reverse the statement, supposing the writer’s en- 
deavor to have corresponded with his purpose, nothing of the kind can 
be inferred from his procedure. 

Luke is distinguished for the number of events he narrates which are 
wholly unnoticed in Matthew. The great number of important and 
entirely new facts which he presents confers especial value on his work. 
Had Mark been acquainted with his work and intended from it togeth- 
er with Matthew to execute a third, he could not have so entirely neg- 
Jected and omitted what was most important in Luke as to have availed 
himself of but a few (§ 30) of his many historical discoveries. We 
should rather have expected him to choose what was most important in 
both Luke and Matthew, and divide his selection between the two. 

Now this was not the case; he directs his attention only to the facts 
in Matthew, and consequently the proofs we have go only to argue the 
use of Matthew. Whatever aim in respect to his peculiar readers we 
suppose Mark to have had in the composition of his work, it must in any 
case be strange that he could find among the many accounts and dis- 
courses in Luke almost nothing of any use towards his object, and on 
the other hand could avail himself of almost every thing in Matthew. 

If, moreover, he took the facts from Matthew and the circumstantial 
detail of them from Luke, as must have been the case, there is nothing 
of Mark’s own in his whole book, and we must therefore allow that he 
has done nothing as an author, but has merely compiled what any one 
might have read in Matthew and Luke, and that he undertook and per- 
formed for no possible purpose an entirely superfluous task. 


Griesbach, supports this thesis : ‘‘ Marci Evangelium totuin ὁ Matthei et Luces 
commentariis decerptum esse.”’ 


416 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


I must now bestow some particular attention upon a more recent po- 
sition, taken by a learned man who in other respects coincides very 
nearly with myself. He regards Luke as the first of the Evangelists. 

The principal argument which he adduces to substantiate his position 
is, that if Matthew wrote before Luke the latter would scarcely have 
presumed to compose a Gospel after him, on account of the weight of 
apostolic authority. True, the authority of an apostle was great ; hence 
arose the respectful diffidence of Luke and the modest apology with 
which he opens his book. (Comp. above ὃ 33). 

This learned man finds a second strong point inthe remark that Luke 
would not have omitted any part of Matthew, had he possessed his work. 
He has not omitted any part of it, except the history of the childhood 
of Jesus, for which he richly indemnifies us by other facts (I—III). — 
The deficiency of the portion of history before mentioned (ᾧ 40), which 
was omitted by the copyist in the very first Mss. on account of the 
Homoioteleuton, cannot be laid to the author’s charge. He has even 
carefully distributed the individual sentences in the (so-called) sermon 
on the mount into eighteen or nineteen different places in his book, 
where they all occur ina perfectly natural connexion; while in Matthew 
there is such a striking want of connexion in the discourse that we can- 
not but discern the juxta-position of detached sentences. He has even re- 
stored those passages which Mark omitted, because in Matthew they 
had not their proper position. (Comp. above ὃ 29, 37, and 40). He in- 
variably presents not only Matthew’s materials, but Mark’s; from the 
last of whom he has not neglected to take the very three events in re- 
gard to which he was more copious than Matthew (ᾧ 30). 

Let us now consider the matter in another light. How much 
more copious is Luke than Matthew? Not to be prolix, we will 
only notice the two remarkable journeys to Jerusalem (11: 51 and 18: 
22), of which we are informed by Luke alone; and of these we will on- 
ly notice the parables. The first is the beautiful parable of the man 
who on his way to Jericho fell among thieves (10:30) ; then comes the 
one respecting a person who awoke his friend at night and importu- 
nately asked bread of him (11: 5 seq.). Then the parables of the lost 
sheep, of the woman who lost a piece of money, and of the prodigal 
son (15: 1—end); the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16: 19); of 
the widow who by her importunity obtained justice of the unjust judge 
(17: 1 seq.); and the parables of the publican and Pharisee praying (17: 
10). All these valuable things belong to Luke exclusively. Could he have 
resigned these to oblivion, even if all the apostles had written before 
him? Was he not bound to present this supplement to his fellow-chris- 
tians? On the other hand, why is it that Matthew, if he wrote after 
Luke, has not said a word of these things, not even hinted at them in 
his brief way, that at least he might crown these valuable passages with 
his testimony and confirmation ? 

It is replied that he did not wish to write any thing of which he was 
not an eye-witness. Very well; but a quarter of his sermon on the 
mount, when it is distributed according to its historical connexion, falls 


_ | Vogel, “ Uber die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien,” in Gabler’s 
** Journal fur auserles. theol. Litteratur.”” [ Bd. I. St. p. 804 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 417 


in these parts of Luke; hence he must have been present at these oc- 
currences or he could not have introduced into his book the sayings 
connected with them. In the third journey, too, he even passes over in 
silence the incident in respect to Zaccheus; and yet the Apostle was pres- 
ent at the conversion of his former colleague, for all the twelve were 
with our Lord. This reply therefore is not satisfactory. 

Once more, then; if Luke preceded Matthew, why has not the lat- 
ter attested anew the copious narrative of the former? Why has he 
neglected to notice, at least briefly, so much that is valuable in him? 
Why is it that he has not availed himself at all of his accurate chronolo- 
gy, to which, as appears from the promise in his introduction, Luke de- 
voted special pains? Why did he neglect to make any use of the 
agreeable particularity with which Luke hasenlivened the events he nar- 
rates, or of the many corrections he has made? In one word, why 
does he fall so far short of the point of perfection to which the history 
had reached before him ? 


§ 47. 


It is perceived from what I have urged against these learned men, that 
the succession of the Evangelists which we have adopted is not arbi- 
trarily assumed, but is founded on what we observe to be the plan and 
procedure of each. 

The order of succession of several historical writers who did not 
write at the same time and were not unacquainted with each other’s 
works, if it be not definitely stated in the history, may be determined 
in two ways. A writer who has been preceded, either presents nothing 
but additions or supplements to the previous history, from which it may 
be inferred what and how much he regarded as already known, and 
what works his procedure proves to have been antecedent to his; or 
else he does not content himself with supplements merely, but repeats 
the old account, and adds what is his own in its proper place. 

Three of the Evangelists relate the same things; consequently two 
have repeated what was before narrated. Now which of the three 
works has most the appearance of priority? Which has, in general, 
the marks in point of matter and manner of being the first historical at- 
tempt? which writer has arranged facts most negligently ? most fre- 
quently disposed them according to the principle of analogy? least 
anxiously investigated the exact and particular circumstances of events ? 
Which has more carefully assigned events to their proper period and ar- 
ranged them more precisely in their real order? more carefully ascertain- 
ed minute circumstances? described the facts more definitely and rigo- - 
rously, and presented them more fully and vividly? Which, lastly, is 
most accurate of all in the chronological arrangement of events? most 
precise in his statements? most abundant in facts? most comprehen- 
sive and complete in his materials and his mode of using them ? 

This gradation in the perfection of the same history enables us readily. 
to determine which was the earlier and which the later writer. This dis- 
closes the order in which they succeeded each other ; and in this case it 
proves the very same order which history presented us at the outset and 
antiquity unanimously supported ; under the guidance of which We se- 


ε 


418 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 


lected our point ofobservation, uncertain whether it would prove to be 
correct or not in the sequel. 

Considering the Evangelists in this order, all those difficulties which 
have led to other opinions are easily resolved. It is perfectly clear that 
Mark might have seen Matthew, and yet arrange many events different- 
Jy, place many in a peculiar light by means of particular circumstances, 
and so represent some things as apparently to contradict Matthew. So, 
likewise, how Luke might have seen Mark, and yet be frequently still 
more accurate in his arrangement, in statements of time, place, and 
circumstances; and how, notwithstanding his copiousness, he is some- 
times more concise than he would have been had he not been aware of 
the particularity of his predecessor. 

All these and like difficulties which are presented in support of re- 
cently proposed theories vanish of themselves when we try them by this 
theory, the points of which are confirmed by history and by a critical 
analysis of the writings under examination. 


§ 48. 


Luke, therefore, found the works of Matthew and Mark, together with 
various others relative to the life, ministry, and acts of our Lord, already 
in existence. Let us now see what he himself accomplished. 

Tn the discourses of Jesus Luke adheres to Matthew invariably, even 
in phraseology. This is seldom the case in his narratives. Mark does 
the same in regard to our Lord’s discourses. We could not take into 
consideration the reason of this before ; but we must no longer defer do- 
ing so. It may be regarded as introductory to our promised summary of 
what Luke has done. 

Matthew was led to compose his Gospel] by the condition and wants 
of a period in which the Jewish state was hastening to its dissolution. 
The interval between the days of Jesus and that period, was too great 
for human memory to recall with accuracy all that he who was the sub- 
ject of the history did and said. Events are least liable to escape 
the recollection, particularly the recollection of an eye-witness, or one 

-to whom they have been vividly represented by eye-witnesses; but it is 
more perilous to trust the phraseology of sayings and discourses to the 
memory alone. 

The former, indeed, it is probable Matthew did trust to his memory ; 
the rather as the idea of writing a history of our Lord did not suggest 
itself to him till a later period. But the elevated doctrines and wise 
sayings of his master had greater claim upon his attention, and it was 
important thatthey should be always before his mind in his ministry. 
To accomplish this object he was prompted and enabled by his official 
habit of recording, an advantage not possessed by the others; and it is 
the fact that the notes which he made were the ground-work of his Gos- 
pel, as we may infer from internal evidence which it contains. In mor- 
al sayings and parables Matthew abounds to overflowing. Frequently 
they are arranged merely according to the principle of resemblance. 
The parables, moral sayings, and exhortations, arranged simply accord- 
ing to the similarity of their scope, bear evident marks of having been 
extracted from some collection. As he was not obliged to use any aid 
of others in making his original notes, his book was regarded by his 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 419 


successors as an authentic source of information in respect to the dis- 
courses of Jesus. 

On the other hand, events wear an appearance of accident in his 
book, more than in the others. He does, indeed, sometimes present 
them circumstantially ; oftener, however, only in outline, just as he found 
them in his notes. With this course he might very well content him- 
self, as his purpose required nothing more. It was the object of Mark’s 
endeavors to complete Matthew’s narratives, to arrange them in chro- 
nological order, and to assign discourses the position to which they be- 
longed, so far as he who was his authority could aid him in doing so. 

Meanwhile the fate of Palestine was decided. Christianity ceased 
its connexion with the Jewish state, was released from all regard to Ju- 
daism, and declared herself independent of its institutions. Those who 
were half Jews were displeased at this, separated themselves, and, as 
it would seem, composed their own Gospels; we refer to the Gospels of 
the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Others collected the rubbish of early tradi- 
tions on historic ground ; and thus were produced the works of the many. 

This was probably about the state of things, when Luke felt himself 
called upon to clear away from the field of history all unauthenticated 
accounts. Matthew was his manual as to the discourses of our Lord, 
and he adhered to it literally, although he has distributed the discourses 
about in various places, inserting them in the history in detached parts, 
and connecting them so happily that the occasion of their utterance is 
perfectly and agreeably evident. He has not, however, taken any facts 
directly from Matthew, except those which Mark has omitted; and he 
has given these an entirely different arrangement. 

He has chosen Mark as his guide in two respects, viz. in the succes- 
sion of events, where Mark differs from Matthew in his arrangement, 
and in the circumstantial narration of facts. He does not, however, ad- 
here wholly to him; he did not shun the trouble of illustrating or en- 
riching a narrative himself, by adding new circumstances when he could 
do so. Circumstances which were susceptible of correction, and had 
remained in Mark because they were so in Matthew, have been stated 
more accurately by him. On the other hand when there was nothing to be 
added or corrected, he contented himself with giving an outline of the nar- 
rative, on the ground that it had been fully exhibited in a previous work. 

Some facts which were new andas yet untouched, he inserted in their 
proper order and connexion. The following important accounts are 
presented us by him alone; the history of Jesus’ youth, intermingled 
with passages of fine poetic and religious fervor ; two,remarkable jour- 
neys to Jerusalem, comprising many important doctrines and parables 
and many striking descriptions; and the history of what befell the dis- 
ciples from the resurrection to the ascension. It is probable that with 
the portion of the history that has disappeared, extending from the feed- 
ing of the five thousand to that of the four thousand, much has been 
Jost with which he enriched and improved the accounts of his predeces- 
sors. However this may be, the enlargement of the history by his 
means, the advance it made both in important and in trifling respects, 
are so plain to every one, that we have no need of the lost portion in 
order to acknowledge and appreciate them. 

How much he adopted into his work with or without amendment, 


A 


‘ 


420 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


from the accounts of the many of whom he speaks, we cannot now as- 
certain, inasmuch as we do not possess those accounts. Just as little 
can we now determine the parts of the rest of which he was an eye-wit- 
ness. As being present in the country which was the scene of the his- 
tory, at the period when the events began to attract notice, he was in a 
situation to see much himself, and to devote to the whole the attention 
which was due to it; to test the accuracy of the declarations of com- 
mon report, as well as of the insinuations of enemies ; to separate the true 
from the false ; and, while opinions were divided, to come to some cer- 
tain conclusion. As aman of Jearning and cultivated mind, having 
turned his attention to these occurrences, he must have felt more in- 
ducement than others to keep some written account of them ; and this 
probably gave him confidence, when circumstances seemed to require it, 
to undertake by means of a true history to make all unauthenticated 
statements superfluous, and to put an end to their circulation. 


JOHN. 


§ 49. 


Last of all, the disciple who lay in our Lord’s bosom likewise pre- 
sented his contemporaries with a memorial of his master. In regard to 
the origin and purpose of his book there are some declarations of the 
ancients yet extant ; but there is so much dispute about them that they 
cannot be considered as principles for our guidance in interpretation. 
It is therefore necessary that we should examine the structure and 
plan of the work, in order to supply the deficiency of other undisputed 
evidence. 

This Evangelist proceeds on a plan of his own, resembling Matthew 
so far as this, that he aims throughout the history to prove certain po- 
sitions, making every thing tend to this object ; but he differs from him 
in this respect, that he never Joses the thread of the narrative or devi- 
ates from the real succession of events, and, with a very complicated and 
artificial plan, is notwithstanding careful to preserve historical order. 

After a somewhat obscure introduction with which he opens his 
work, the first narrative which he presents to us contains the acknowl- 
edgment that Jesus was Christ or Messiah, by the Baptist (1: 19—34) ; 
and afterwards the same by Peter and Andrew (1: 41—44). Then 
follows the account of Philip’s conviction that Jesus was he of whom 
Moses and the Prophets had written ; and then of Nathaniel’s, who de- 
clares him to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (1: 44—51). 

When, after the first miracle at Cana, Jesus appeared in Jerusalem, 
he asserted that the temple was his Father’s house (2: 16 seq.), and de- 
clared to Nicodemus that he was the only begotten Son of God, 
whom the Father’s love had sent into the world for its salvation (3: 2— 
22). After his return from Jerusalem, John the Baptist declares anew 
that Jesus is the Son of God sent from above, into whose hands the Fa- 
ther hath committed all power (3: 23—36). Jesus is then on his way 
home through Samaria; a woman of that country perceives something 


5 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 421 


extraordinary in him, and our Lord avows himself to her as the Mes- 
siah who is called Christ (4: 25, 26); and many more believe that he is 
the Christ, the Saviour of the world (4: 42). 

While in Jerusalem the second time, he heals the man who was wait- 
ing in vain at the pool of Bethesda. When the Jews blamed him for 
the miracle on account of the violation of the Sabbath, he asserted that 
his power was the power of God committed to him, that God was his 
Father, he his Son, his commissioned agent and judge of the world, of 
whom Moses spake (Chap.5). After his return he wrought the miracle 
of the loaves, which caused the people to regard him as the promised 
prophet, and to wish to make him king of Israel (6: 14, 15). On the 
following day he asserts that he is the bread of life, which came down 
From heaven (6: 35 seq.), he who was with the Father and came from 
the Father ; and Simon declares: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God (6: 69). 

On occasion of the feast of tabernacles, Jesus again visits Jerusalem, 
and openly rebukes the people for seeking his life. Some of the people de- 
clare him.to be the Christ, and say that Christ himself could not do more 
miracles than he (7: 11—87). On the last day of the feast he is again 
regarded as the Prophet and the Christ, and a learned discussion arises 
with regard to this topic (7: 37—53). 

If we proceed thus to consider in their order all the conversations and 
acts of Jesus which John has introduced into his book, we shall almost 
invariably find that their subject and purport are either that Jesus zs the 
Son of God, or that he ts the Christ, or both (8: 12—59. 9: 1—35 and 
38. 10: 1—24. 10: 24—42: 11: 1—27. 12: 13—20. 12: 20—34. 12: 
44, 45, 49). The promises and consolations in chapters 14—18, ex- 
hibit the relation between the Father and the Son, the divine origin of 
Jesus, his dignity as Messiah and as ruler and judge of the world. 
Even in the history ofthe passion he, as well as Matthew, aims to render 
the Messianic character of Jesus evident by comparison of the prophe- 
cies concerning him (19: 24, 28, 36, 37). 

The whole structure of the book, therefore, and the judicious choice 
of all its component parts,' lead us to a conclusion in regard to the ob- 
ject of its author, the same as that which he clearly states at the close 
of his work, viz. that it was to prove Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of 
God (20: 31). 


§ 50. 


A dogmatic work of such extent, occupied about so few positions, 
must have been rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time ; 
and we might conjecture that the aim of the writer in this fulness and 
accumulation of proof was probably polemical, or in other words apolo- 

etical. 
2 This point, however, is placed beyond a doubt by John’s first Epistle, 
which, as we shall see hereafter, was written with the same purpose, 
in the same circumstances, and at the same time, as the Gospel. At 


1 The same observation has been made and well pursued by Prof. Paulus. 
‘Comment. Theol. Historiam Cerinthi ad finem Johanneorum in N. T. libello- 
rum illvsteature.”” Jeng. 1795. 8vo. p. 157 seq. 


422 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


that period certain persons apostatized from Christianity, of which they 
were probably never sincere professors (1 John 2: 19), who perverted 
the doctrines of Christianity (2: 18), broached false opinions, were 
wevorecs, heretics and deceivers (2: 22. 4: 1, 2,3), and denied that Je- 
sus was the Christ and the Son of God (2:22. 4: 1, 2,3, 15, 16. 5:5, 
20). These men awakened in the breast of the Apostle anxiety for the 
preservation of pure doctrine and the peace of the Christian churches 
under his care, and gave occasion to his productions. 


§ 51. 


Still, however, those against whom John’s Gospel was directed, are 
not yet brought definitely before us. According to ancient history there 
were many in the time of the Apostle, who maintained in different sys- 
tems the position that Jesus was not the Christ, the Son of God; and 
this in those very churches to which he had devoted especial pains, and 
in whose midst he had resolved to dwell. 

In this respect they were all dangerous, however they might differ 
on other points. ‘The heresy was the same under various forms, and 
in his work the Apostle certainly had in his eye all the systems which 
were chargeable with this heresy, without according a flattering distinc- 
tion to any particular one. We need not then inquire whether this 
book was directed against Cerinthus, when it is proved that he lived in 
these days and in this region, maintained this opinion, and moreover ac- 
quired celebrity as a teacher. It was directed against all who aimed 
by this tenet (with whatever theories or accessary ideas connected), to 
mislead the Christians for whose benefit John wrote. 

It is not to be denied that according to the positive declarations of 
history, Cerinthus was a contemporary of the Apostle, and abode in the 
region in which tie latter taught and labored in the cause of the Gos- 
pel; and that the heresy we have mentioned constituted a part of his 
system. At the same time, too, appeared the Nicolaitans, who caused 
much corruption in the churches and called for all the vigilance of the 
Apostle. In respect to this particular tenet, as well as many others, 
they coincided with Cerinthus. 

Even had we no historical evidence asto this matter, if Ireneus, Jer- 
ome, and Epiphanius had not expressly mentioned Cerinthus and the 
Nicolaitans as heretics! whose influence John intended to counteract, 
still the authentic expression of his sentiments relative to certain here- 
sies which is found in his first Epistle, compared with the plan and 
contents of the Gospel and the general history of the time, would di- 
rect us to these persons as certainly as definite historical information. 

Stating the opinions of Cerinthus in conformity with the philosophy 
of those times, we have the following system. There is one God over 
all; he is most perfect unity, and could not therefore operate on matter 
and be the Creator of the world. From him emanated certain extreme- 


1 Tren. Adv. Heer. Lib. III. c. 9. “ Hane fidem annuntians Domini discipu- 
Jus volens per Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho insemina- 
tus est hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his, qui dicuntur Nicolaite . . 
sic inchoavit . . . . In principio etc. Hieron. Script. Eccl. V. Joannis. Epiphan. 
Her. LXIX. ἴ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 423 


ly pure and perfect ‘natures (invisibilia et innominabilia), who augment- 
ed their number by propagation, and gradually decreased in spirituality, 
becoming more and more material, so as to retain but a slight connex- 
ion with the One, Eternal Being. These, from the increasing grossness 
of their nature, were able to operate upon matter and mould it into form. 

A being of the latter order, one who knew nothing at all of the pure 
Eternal spirit, was the Creator of the world ;! hence came evil and the 
imperfection of creation.—Such was the solution of a problem which 
has occasioned the most various theories on the part of the philosophers 
of these and former days. 

As a philosopher, he found it difficult to admit that Jesus was born of 
a virgin, and maintained that he was begotten and born like the rest of 
mankind, according to the usual laws of nature; but that as a man 
he was superior to all his fellow-men in wisdom and mental greatness. 

On the other hand, that he might in some way accord to Jesus the 
distinction of a higher origin, which his actions clearly evinced, he as- 
serted that one of the spiritual natures we have mentioned, viz. the 
Christ, united himself to Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism. On 
this account he possessed henceforth the power of producing superhu- 
man effects, and likewise of acquainting mankind with the true eternal 
Deity, who had hitherto remained unknown to them because he had 
not revealed himself by any operation. 

This Christ, as an immaterial being of exalted origin (e superivribus 
Christus), being one of the purer kinds of spirits, was from his nature 
not susceptible of material affections, of suffering and pain. He there- 
fore at the commencement of the passion resumed his existence sepa- 
rately from Jesus, abandoned him to pain and death, and soared upwards 
to heaven from whence he came. Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and 
Christ, Jesus and the Son of God, as beings of different nature and 
dignity.” 

The Nicolaitans held similar doctrines in regard to the Supreme 
Deity and his relation to mankind, and an inferior spirit who was the 
Creator of the world. Among the subaltern orders of spirits, they 
considered the most distinguished to be the only-begotten, the μονο-- 
yevns (whose existence, however, had a beginning), and the λόγος, who 


---- 5---- rae - ee ἘΡΒΕ ΕΕΌΟ. 


1 Tren. L. III. c. 11. ** Eam conditionem, que est secundum nos, non a primo 
Deo factam, sed a virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecté, et abscissa ab eorum 
communicatione, que sunt invisibilia et innuminabilia.” L. 1. c. 26. ‘* A virtute 
quidam valde separatd . . . . et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum.” 


2 The old reading of 1 John 4: 3, mentioned by Socrates (H. Εἰ. L. VII. c. 32), 
expresses this distinction very well. He testifies that it was read ἐν τοῖς πα- 
λαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις thus: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν “Inoovy (ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to 
be understood) ἐκ ϑεοῦ οὔκ ἐστε. This reading, he further says, the old inter- 
preters (οὐ παλαιοὶ ἑρμηνεῖς) even admitted to be the correct one. We find itin 
Ireneus still (L. III ο. 16. η. 8,), ‘ Et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, non est 
ex Deo.’ as also in Tertullian and several writers who follow the old Latin ver- 
sion ; butno Greek Mss. of the Catholic Epistles, which represent the text of 
that early period, now contain it. * There is internal evidence, however, in favor 
of this reading ; for it is the most obscure and difficult, and manifests profound 
thought, while the present reading: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολόγει τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, ἔκ 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ οὔκ ἔστε, is suspicious from its being synonymous with the preceding 
clause. 


424 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


was an immediate descendant of the only-begotten.' History is silent 
as to what other tenets they held in regard to these beings. 

Christ belongs to the number of beings sprung from God ; Jesus, how- 
ever,is a son of the Creator of the world, with whom Christ united 
himself at his baptism, and whom he abandoned at his passion.” 


§ 52. 


At the commencement of his book the Evangelist gives great promi- 
nence to the assertion that Jesus is the light and the life (1: 4, 5, 9); 
and in the progress of his narrative, his attention is frequently, and ac- 
cording to his custom systematically, directed to these two positions, 
3: 19—22. δ: 24, 35. 8: 12. 9: 5. 12: 35, 36 and 46. 6: 35 and 48. 6: 
51—60. 10: 28. 9: 25, 26. 14: 6. 17: 3. 

It would seem from his procedure in the selection of facts for his 
purpose, that the sacred writer had also in mind such persons as denied 
that Jesus was the light and the life, or, to speak without a figure, that 
he was the moral renovator and teacher of the world, to whom belonged 
the praise of having conducted them from their errors to the path of 
truth and happiness. There were several points which he was desirous 
of establishing ; that Jesus was the Christ, that he was the Son of God, 
and that those who believed in him would have life through this disci- 
pleship (20: 31), ὅτε ὦ /joous ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ 
ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχετε ἐν τῷ ονόματε αὐτοῦ. 

Nor is it difficult to conjecture the person to whom some gave prece- 
dence before our Lord as the enlightener of the world and author of the 
doctrines which conferred life on men. ‘It was John the Baptist. 
When at the outset of his book the author announces the doctrine that 


1 For the benefit of those who see in the Logos nothing but Philo’s doctrine 
and the Alexandrian philosophy, I refer them to Dr. Neander, who has clearly 
exhibited Philo’s doctrine on this point, in such a manner as no other writer has. 
“ Entwicklung der gnostischen Systeme.” Berlin 1818. p. 1—28. ‘“‘ Elemente der 
Gnosis im Philo.’”’ This learned man evinces in many passages.of his work his 
conviction, that the origin of these opinions lies farther back than Philo’s time, 
and that an oriental theosophy, was shaped, in the Jewish and other nations, into 
various systems, which became known in the time of Christianity under the 
name of Gnostic systems 

2 From some appearances, not so strongly marked, however, as to be perfect- 
ly decisive, we might be disposed to include likewise among those opposed by 
John’s works such teachers as denied Christ a material body, attributing to him 
‘only an apparent one, and consequently making his passion only apparent, viz. 
the Docetw, who denied: ᾿]ησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυϑότα. 1 Ep. 4: 2.2 
Ep. 7. We might likewise make the passage in the Gospel, 19: 34—38, in 
which John avers that blood and water really issued from his side, refer to this 
sect. These passages, however, are susceptible of a different interpretation. 
᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυϑύτα or ἐρχόμενον may be understood as meaning 
that Jesus was not merely united with Christ at his baptism, but entered the 
world as Christ and was born as such. Storr ‘‘ Ueber den Zweck der evange- 
lisch. Geschichte Johannis und der Briefe,’ ὃ 21. There exists, therefore, no 
necessity nor even probability of his referring to them. Had he intended to at- 
tack this sect, he would not have alluded to them so cursorily in but two passa- 
ges, and those doubtful. The tenet enforced by the Gospel and the first Epistle 
is, that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. The Docete were so far from de- 
nying this, that they even strenuously maintained that the true and real, contain- 
ed or enveloped in the apparent, was the Christ, the Son of God. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 425 


the Logos ts the light which shinethin darkness, he subjoins, John came 
to bear witness of the light. This is plain, and nothing more was ne- 
cessary. But the writer feelsa deep-rooted anxiety in regard to this 
point, and expressly repeats this declaration a second time in an antith- 
esis, and the first member of this antithesis again for the third time: 
“© The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men 
through him might believe. He was not that light, but was sent to bear 
witness of that light. That was the true light which lighteth every 
man that cometh into the world.’ (John 1: 7, 8, 9). 

The Evangelist has also selected discourses of Jesus which contain 
declarations of his superiority to John , and he introduces confessions of 
John himself, which state the pre-existence of Jesus, his unequalled 
dignity as teacher and as the author of life and happiness to man, and 
his own inferiority, as being but a disciple and messenger (1: 15. 1: 20 
—31. 3: 26—36. 5: 34—37. 10: 41). 

We find, too, that in this region and in Ephesus, the city which the 
Evangelist had selected for his residence, there were men in Nero’s 
time who did not know of any other baptism than John’s, had become 
his disciples through it, and had heard nothing of the Holy Ghost ; for 
Paul afterwards laid his hands on certain men of this description, and 
baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, imparting to them the Holy 
Ghost, so that they spoke with tongues (Acts 19: 1—8). They were 
certainly not the only such persons of their time; and many may have 
been more pertinacious in their preference for their teacher, and less 
flexible in their opinions. — ‘ 

Tosuch, probably, the Evangelist had reference in introducing those 
passages which exhibit John as not daring to compare his baptism, viz. 
the baptism by water, with the baptism with water and with the Holy 
Ghost (1:33. 3: 26-30). So likewise the observation in relation to 
the gifts of the Spirit (7: 39), which contains an explanation for those 
who were not, rather than those who were, believers; the exalted repre- 
sentation of regeneration by water and the Spirit (3: 8—12); and all that 
Jesus says respecting the Comforter and the Holy Ghost, which was to 
be poured out on his disciples after he was ascended to heaven (14: 16, 
17. 14: 26, 15: 26. 16: 7—15). 


§ 53. 


The procedure of the Evangelist in carrying his plan into execution 
is remarkably singular, and a problem which we are bound to solve. 
There is much considerateness and deliberate system apparent, even in 
minuti, in respect to the arrangement of the book and the choice of 
facts for a particular purpose ; and yet the author has totally neglected 
the most valid proofs of his positions. This was not by any means be- 
cause circumstances denied him an intimate acquaintance with them ; 
for the occurrences alluded to were such as he must have been well ac- 
quainted with, on account of his presence and participation, and such 
as must have been fastened forever in the minds of all who witnessed 
them, on account of their grand, supernatural, and astonishing char- 
acter. 

Could he have passed over such important facts, if they had not al- 

54 


426 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


ready been detailed by other credible writers? Could he have given up 
with indifference the best aids to his design, had not other historians 
preceded him in regard to them ? 

In the synagogue at Capernaum there was a demoniac who knew 
Jesus and cried out to him, “ Thou art the Holy One of God,” etc. 
John was there at the time, for when Jesus left the synagogue he was 
in his company with James and Andrew (Mark 1: 29); and this mira- 
cle was one of the first which he saw his Master perform. 

At Gadaris a multitude of demons acknowledge Jesus to be the Son 
of the Most High God (Matth. 8: 29. Mark 5:7. Luke 8: 28). John 
was present, for on the return we find him in our Lord’s company (Mark 
δ: 37. Luke 8: 51). 

Among the many evidences which he adduces in support of the dig- 
nity of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, this species likewise merited 
attention. The testimony of the spiritual world was to many, on ac- 
count of their notions, a more weighty argument than any other; and 
the more unexceptionable, as it was the testimony of hostile powers, who 
were unable to deny our Lord this dignity. 

He is wholly silent as to what took place before Caiaphas in regard 
to Jesus, and only relates Peter’s adventures in the high priest’s palace. 
Yet he evinces remarkable familiarity with the minutest circumstan- 
ces throughout the history of the passion, surpassing all the other Evan- 
gelists, inthis respect. He informs us that Jesus was not led immedi- 
ately to Caiaphas, but first to Annas, and states the reason of this; and 
then goes on to detail, with much more precision than the other Evan- 
gelists, what happened with regard to Peter. ‘Thus, with all his histori- 
cal knowledge, he neglected what was of great consequence to his chief 
object, and devoted his attention to a matter of little moment. We 
Jearn from the other Evangelists, that Jesus was examined before Caia- 


phas, that his declarations were taken down, witnesses were heard, and 
Y . . - . 
the accusation which was to be made against him before the Pretor 


definitely settled; and that on this occasion (a circumstance of very 
great importance with reference to John’s design) Jesus declared before 
the council, after calling the living God, the Most High, to witness, and 
the declaration was recorded, that he was the Son of God and the Mes- 
siah, that he was to take his place henceforth at the right hand of God, 
and was to come in the clouds of heaven (Matth. 26: 64. Mark 14: 62. 
Luke 22: 69). 

The transfiguration on the mount, of which John was a spectator 
with others, was evidently the highest proof of the positions of his book, 
infinitely superior to all the alleged confessions of pious men, the disciples 
of Jesus, or the convictions of all others, Jews or Gentiles. On this oc- 
casion alone, with the exception of his baptism, was Jesus acknowledged 
by God himself in a voice from heaven as his beloved Son, in whom he 
was well pleased (Matth. 17: 1. Mark 9: 2. Luke 9: 27 seq.) 

Directly after this occurrence, too, the object of the ministry of John 
the Baptist, his relation to Jesus, and the inferiority of his authority and 
office to those of Jesus, which constituted one of the subjects to be elu- 
cidated in John’s Gospel, were clearly and accurately stated by Jesus 
eae 17: 10 seq. Mark 9: 12). The whole is entirely unnoticed by 

ohn. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 427 


Even the only event which can bear any comparison with this in ar- 
gumentative force in regard to the points he wished to establish, viz. the 
history of Jesus’ baptism, is likewise totally omitted by him ; he merely 
introduces the Baptist as saying something which has a reference to it, 
but which would be itself unintelligible, if we did not know the story 
of his baptism from the works of the other Evangelists. ‘The Baptist is 
introduced as follows (1: 32, 33, 34): “ John bare record, saying, I saw 
the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 
And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the 
same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending 
and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy 
Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Sonof God.” We 
do not learn from this even when and how the Spirit descended upon 
Jesus ; but have only the declaration of the Baptist that he was an eye- 
witness of the occurrence, and henceforth regarded Jesus as the Son of 
God. That this happened, however, at his baptism, that when Jesus 
was coming up out of the water, the Spirit descended on him like a 
dove, that the heavens were opened, and a voice came from them say- 
ing: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased—all this we do 
not find in our Evangelist, nor should we even be able to understand to 
what the language of John the Baptist had reference, did we not pos- 
sess from another quarter the information which is presupposed by 
the Evangelist. 

It needs no erudition to perceive, that throughout his whole book 
John has presented no argument in support of his positions, which can 
compare at all as to validity and authority with these which he has neg- 
lected. Now did he leave unnoticed these forcible facts, with which 
circumstances made him better acquainted than either of the Evange- 
lists, in the hope that in time there would appear historians who would 
record them, and bring forward what would have been his best argu- 
ments? or is it certain that he would not and could not have omitted 
them, had not otiers already made use of these materials, which would 
have been so much to his purpose, so that he could not use them with- 
out going over beaten ground? If the first conclusion be, as it is, ab- 
surd, we must adopt the second. There remained, therefore, for the 
Apostle, tobe employed for his purposes, only what had been omitted by 
previous writers. These omitted portions of the history were all which he 
could treatof, even though they might not be by any means so important 
as those which had been already presented. He was thus, not only able, 
but compelled, to proceed as he has done, in the execution of his plan. 

It is only on this supposition that we can explain his procedure in re- 
gard to two important subjects, viz. doctrines and miracles. It might 
have been thought that, in order to exhibit Jesus to the polished Asiat- 
ics in a point of view in which they were peculiarly disposed to consid- 
er him, John would have selected for his theme his elevated moral wis- 
dom, and have undertaken to show that the world had never seen any 
thing like it. But he felt stronger claims on his attention from another 
quarter ; he felt it specially incumbent upon him to establish the divine 
authority and truth of these as well as other doctrines, viz. that Jesus 
was not merely a man, instructed perhaps by some being of a higher 
order, who revealed to him the doctrines which he taught; but that he 


428 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


had the highest legislative power. was with God πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσ- 
μου, before the corner-stone of creation was laid; that he was one with 
God, the partner of his wisdom and power, the Son of God, or, which 
is the same thing, the Messiah, ὁ Xgsoros; that he came immediately 
from heaven, and after accomplishing his work of reforming man, as- 
cended again to the possession of his hereditary glory. ‘To prove these 
points he appeals to the declarations of Jesus himself, which he pre- 
sents in abundance and minutely. In proceeding thus, he was well 
aware that the moral doctrines of Jesus had been stated with sufficient 
fulness and distinctness by others; and that all which remained was to 
show the sacred character of these and other doctrines, and their imme- 
diate divine origin. 

Now in what way has he established the truth of the declarations of 
Jesus? By miracles. ‘Throughout the book, whenever our Lord de- 
clares his divine origin, his dignity as the only begotten Son of God, he 
attests the truth of his declarations by the miracles which he performed. 
Those who receive his assertions and maintain their truth, do it on the 
ground of these signs and wonders of divine power, 2: 23. 3: 2. σημεῖα, 
4: 48. σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, δ: 19—21. 5: 36. 6: 2, 14, 26. 7: 3—31. 9: 
3, 4. ἔργα τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 9: 16. σημεῖα, 9: 31—34. 10: 21—25, 37, 38, 41. 
11: 42, 45, 47. πολλὰ σημεῖα, 12: 18. 12: 37—43. 14: 10—13. 15: 24. 
Thus the argument always rests on miracles ;' yet John has mentioned 
very few of them, and detailed only five. How could he have proceeded 
thus, if he did not know that these miracles had been before attested by 
well-known writings? that the proof on which every thing ultimately 
depended, had already been adduced ? 

As respects the narrative of the Lord’s supper, too, he evidently takes 
for granted the existence of other authentic histories. It was specially 
requisite that this occurrence, containing as it did an example for fu- 
ture commemorations of our Lord’s death throughout the Christian world, 
should be preserved in writing ; and who was better fitted to depict it 
than the disciple who during the supper lay on Jesus’ bosom? He, how- 
ever, says only just so much concerning it in his book as to show that 
he designedly passed over the narrative, because it needed no mention ; 
and he proceeds to relate instead certain incidental occurrences, which 
are found nowhere else. ‘‘ Now before the feast of the passover,” says 
he, ‘‘ when Jesus knew that his hour was come, that he should depart 
out of this world unto the Father, having loved hisown which were in 
the world, he loved them untothe end. And supper being ended, καὶ 
δείπνου γενομένου, he rose and girded himself, and poured water into 
a basin,” etc. After washing his disciples’ feet he returned to the table, 
πάλιν ἀναπεσών. There is not a word throughout respecting the con- 


1 We may hence judge whether the reason why John omitted most of the 
miracles was, that they had nothing to do with his idea of a Messiah, and were 
little in accordance with Hellenic taste. How inconceivable, in that case, that 
he should make everything depend ultimately on miracles! The Messiah, 
therefore, whom he exhibits in his Gospel, is the ancient Jewish Messiah and 
Son of God, whose character was attested by miracles, and not a Hellenized 
Messiah, more refined than the Jewish one, and presented in a purely metaphys- 
ical light in order to favor the speculative disposition of the inhabitants of Asia 
Minor; from which latter point of view, however, it has been attempted 
to determine the end and aim of the Gospel. It was rather his endeavor to set 
bounds to the unlimited speculation of the Asiatics. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 429 


secration of the bread and wine; the treachery of Judas, only, is alluded to 
(13: 1—23). Was it possible to exhibit more clearly a settled design to 
omit this occurrence, considering its affecting and important character ? 
Was it possible more plainly to take for granted that it was attested al- 
ready, and secured from forgetfulness and from the accidents of time ? 

Now all this, the previous historical existence of which is taken for 
granted in his plan of procedure, we find in our Gospels; and by their 
aid alone could we discover the peculiar principles by which he was 
guided, and perceive what had to his knowledge been already related. 
These Gospels were certainly before him. 

Certain allusions which he has made to narratives previously in exis- 
tence accord in a striking manner with our Evangelists. According to 
John’s history, after Jesus had chosen his first disciples and made a 
commencement of his miracles at Cana, he went from Nazareth to Ca- 
pernaum, where he designed to dwell. Soon after, a passover occur- 
red, on which occasion our Lord travelled for the first time in his new 
capacity to Jerusalem (2: 18). As he journeyed homeward from this 
city after the feast, through Judea, he baptized. John was sojourning at 
the time for the same purpose at Anon, near Salim, whither a great 
multitude of persons desirous of being baptized, and of disciples, came 
to him (3: 22 seq.). After relating these things concerning the Baptist, 
he subjoins: for John was not yet cast into prison, οὔπω γὰρ ἣν βε- 
βλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακήν. 


This addition is not an explanation of his own narrative, for the (; 


whole tenor of his history shows that John was yet at liberty. It was | 


therefore inserted asa correction of some other accounts which he in- 
tended to charge with inaccuracy. 

_ Now this correction is really applicable to two of our Gospels. Mat- 
thew who neglected chronology, says directly after the temptation, be- 
fore Jesus is related to have gone to Capernaum, that John had been 
cast into prison (4:12). Mark retained the same statement (1: 14), be- 
cause his voucher, Peter, did not alter it. Luke alone avoided the 
anachronism (4: 14). To whom, then, must the Evangelist have referred 
in the observation: for John was not yet cast into prison? 

Again, his procedure in regard to the woman that was a sinner, who 
anointed Jesus, is remarkable in the same point of view. He speaks (11: 1 
seq.) of Bethany, the dwelling-place of Mary and Martha, whose broth- 
er lay sick. He here breaks off his narrative, and at the word Mary 
inserts the parenthetic remark: This was that Mary who anointed the 
Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair. 

He himself has not yet related this story of the woman that anointed 
Jesus, and does not give it till afterwards, where he designates who she 
was more expressly than the other Evangelists (12: 1). By this mode 
of narration he assumes the fact as already known before he has himself 
related it. He, however, judges it necessary to inform the reader of 
the name of the person, supposing him to be ignorant of it. 

The story is related in the other Gospels, and the assumption that it 
was already known seems to denote that they were in existence when 
John wrote. Neither of them, however, has designated the person eith- 
er by name or by attendant circumstances; so that the observation is 
aiid pertinent to their narrative, and we can see to what it had re- 

erence. 


430 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


But this is not all; still more distinct traces of the three previous 
Gospels are perceptible. Mark has added something to the account of 
this occurrence as it stands in Matthew, but in such a manner that its 
identity is perfectly clear; while Luke has omitted the circumstances 
contained in the two former Evangelists, and detailed others connected 
with the occurrence. Hence we might be led to consider the event 
which he relates as anentirely different one from that related by Mat- 
thew and Luke; especially as Luke has assigned it to a different period. 
Matthew and Mark state that the woman anointed the head of Jesus ; 
Luke that it was his feet, and that she wiped them with the hair of her 
head. The former state the dissatisfaction of Judas respecting it, while 
Luke mentions the reproach of the Pharisee, and the rebuke which he 
received (7:39). John combines the circumstances related in all the 
three into one narrative. The description of the ointment and of its 
value he borrows from Mark ; the procedure of the woman, from Luke; 
and the admonition which Jesus gave to Judas, from Matthew (Matth. 
26: 7. Mark 14: 3. Luke 7: 37. John 32: 3). 


Matthew. | Mark. Luke. | John. 
| | Ἢ οὖν Μαρία 
ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον λαβοῦσα λίτραν 
“μύρου, νάρδου πισ- μύρου νάρδου πισ-- 
᾿τικῆς πολυτελοῦς" τιχὴς πολυτίμου, 
ἤρξατο βρέχειν ἤλειψε τοὺς 
τοὺς πόδας, καὶ | πόδας τοῦ Ιησοῦ, 
ἤλειφε, καὶ ταῖς καὶ ἐξέμαξε 
ϑριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς » 
| αὑτῆς Ἂ 
| ἐξέμασσε, ταῖς ϑριξὶν αὑτῆς 
καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺ τοὺς πόδας 
| πόδας αὐτοῦ. αὐτοῦ"... 
᾿Ηδύνατο τοῦτο | Ayer οὖν %. τ. he 
| τὸ μῦρον Διατὶ τοῦτο τὸ 
| μύρον 
πραϑῆναι οὐκ ἐπράϑη 
ἐπάνω τριακοσίων τριακοσίων 
δηναρίων, 4 δηναρίων, 
wat δοθῆναι τοῖς καὶ ἐδόϑη 
πτωχοὶς. πτωχοῖς ;. .. 
(0 08’ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν" Εἶπεν οὖν ὃ 
᾿Ιησοῦς" 


’ 2 
|” Aqete αὑτήν" ; Apes αὐτήν * εἰς 


προέλαβε μυρίσαι τὴν ἡμέραν 
μου τὸ σῶμα 
| εἰς τὸν ἐνταφιασ-- τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ 
μόν. | μου 


Ae 
| τετήρηκεν αὐτό. 


Πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς ἱ Τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ 


πτωχοὺς ἔχετε πάντοτε ἔχετε 
εἰν Ὁ ~ Poe ἴτε 
μεϑ' ξαυτῶν " μεϑ' ἑαυτῶν, 
Δ ᾿ 4 " 2 4 
ἐμὲ δὲ οἱ πάντοτε ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε 


5» 3 
ἔχετε. εχετξ. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 431 


§ 54. 


Supposing these writers to have been acquainted with each other’s 
works, and each therefore to have made use of the work of his prede- 
cessor, resting all hisown merit upon an improvement of the narrative, 
there is weight in the following argument for the priority of Luke to 
John, and much more for his priority to Matthew and Mark, on whose 
works that of Luke was based. 

John has given to some narratives a completeness that Matthew’s 
sketches, and even Mark’s amplification of them, which was copied by 
Luke, did not possess ; and which they did not obtain until they came un- 
der the hand of so acute an observer asthis apostle, who was generally 
foremost among the disciples. 

Matthew describes in 26: 69—75, the denial of Peter, paying atten- 
tion to the fact alone, and not to the place or persons that occasioned it. 
Mark treads in his foot-steps, adding almost nothing (14: 66—72) ; as 
likewise Luke, who in a great measure copies his predecessors (22: 54 
—63). 

On the other hand, John states definitely the place of the transaction. 
It commenced in the palace of the high priest Annas; there, in the 
court, into which John had procured him admission, Peter denied our 
Lord for the first time to the woman who kept the door (18: 17). John 
then changes the scene to the presence of Caiaphas, where the other 
three Evangelists first take up the narrative, and begin the story of Pe- 
ter’s denial of his Master; while according to John he only finished in 
this place what he began in the house of Annas, and for the second and 
third time disowned acquaintance with Jesus (18: 25—27). 

We may observe, too, that according to Matthew it was another of 
the maids, ἄλλη, according to Mark, ἡ παιδίσκη, and according to Luke, 
ἄλλος, a man, who led Peter to deny the second time ; while accord- 
ing to John it was several persons at once, é¢70v οὖν αὐτῷ, the accounts 
of all the Evangelists being thus reconciled. 

It is evident that in this case, particularly in respect to the designa- 
tion of the scene of the first occurrence, John has imparted additional 
completeness to the narrative ; and Luke could not have contented him- 
self with the imperfect account of the first two writers, and have trans- 
ferred it just as it was into his book, had the work of the beloved dis- 
ciple been before him. 

In the account of the resurrection, Matthew, as usual, is careless about 
the order in which the occurrences succeeded each other, as it had noth- 
ing to do with his object; and he merely keeps in view his main de- 
sign. At dawn of day, he says, when the women visited the sepulchre, 
an angel rolled away the stone, and announced to them that the Lord 
had risen, and that they must go and tell his disciples; and they made 
haste to obey (28: 1—11). Mark and Luke left this just as they found 
it in Matthew (Mark 16: 1—9. Luke 24: 1—10). 

John, who went thither hiinself, and was in the garden and at the 
sepulchre, gives us more precise information as to the time of this oc- 
currence. Mary Magdalene had already been at the sepulchre, where 
she found the stone rolled away, and then called thither two of the dis- 


432 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


ciples, Peter and John. While the latter were occupied in examining 
for themselves, she stood without weeping ; she then stepped again in- 
to the sepulchre, and now saw the men in white raiment, and afterwards 
our Lord himself. 

Luke, therefore, might have derived essential aid from the more com- 
plete narrative of John, and must certainly have copied that rather than 
the narratives of Matthew and Mark, had he been so fortunate as to 
see, before the publication of his own work, that of a writer of such 
high authority on account of his peculiar circumstances. 


§ 55. 


Such are the internal evidences in the books of Matthew, Mark and 
Luke, that they were antecedent to the Gospel of John; and such the 
references in the latter which show that the writer was acquainted with 
the contents of the three other Gospels. Now if the declarations of an- 
cient writers coincide with this conclusion, they do not deserve to be 
so summarily rejected as they have been. 

John, says Eusebius,! for a long time occupied himself with oral in- 
struction alone. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke, had published their 
Gospels, they came under his eye; he gave them his approval and his 
testimony to their truth, and determined to supply what was wanting in 
them by a work of his own. It is true that what Eusebius says respect- 
ing that part of the history omitted, which it was John’s intention to sup- 
ply, is not correct; but it is clear from his own representation that he 
connected his exegetical notions with the ancient account, and these 
must be distinguished from the latter. 

We obtain the same account in substance, though accompanied with 
other embellishments, from a Latin father, who lived perhaps at the 
commencement of the third century. The fourth Gospel, says he, is 
by John, one of the disciples, who, when his fellow-disciples and the 
elders of the church solicited him to write it, replied, Fast with me. It 
was then revealed in the night to Andrew, one of the apostles, that 
John should review the other “books, or consult the other apostles (the 
text is uncertain, and was probably ambiguous in the Greek itself: 
ἀνεξεταζομένων ἁπάντων, ἅπαντα συγγράψοιτο), and present the re- 
sult in a work under his own name. The fabulous part of this account 
does not hinder us from admitting its main purport; and moreover this 
very fabulous statement assures us that the same fact is here attested on 
_ totally different authority from the former. 

The account of a writer who is perhaps somewhat later than the pre- 
ceding, but who appeals to earlier fathers, is destitute of such embellish- 
ments and gpptoaches nearer its original purity. Clement of Alexan- 
dria states,® that when John, the last of the Evangelists, perceived that 
what related to our Lord as a man had been fully treated of in the Gos- 
pels, he, at the instance of his friends, composed under divine inspira- 
tion a Gospel which unfolded his spiritual nature. 


1 Euseb. Η. E. L. III. ο. 24. 
2 Antiqq. Ital. Med. Av. Muratorii. T. III. p. 854 
3 Euseb. H. E. L. IV. c. 14. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 433 


And what is more natural, than that John, who outlived all his compan- 
ions, and who, if his Epistles were connected with his Gospel, wrote 
his history in his old age, as a πρεσβύτερος, should have seen, and 
been familiar with, the Gospels which were already in circulation? 


§ 56. 


John, therefore, saw the other Gospels; and this was one of the cir- 
cumstances which determined the plan and nature of his own work and 
the selection of the facts to be introduced in it. 

The scene of events with the first three Evangelists is Galilee ; and 
among its cities Capernaum in particular. There our Lord first ap- 
pears after leaving his abode at Nazareth to commence his ministry. 
From this place he makes his journeys; and thither he returns after go- 
ing to Gennesareth, to Gadaris, or the region of Tyre and Sidon, 
or teaching and performing miracles in Decapolis. Within this circuit 
all the actions of Jesus related by them are comprehended; and Jesus 
never steps out of it till he goes to suffer at Jerusalem. 

The case is different with John. He presents to us new scenes in 
other regions. He leads us to Judea, and particularly to Jerusalem. 
In regard to events which took place there he is extremely copious ; but 
takes scarcely any notice of what occurred in Galilee. Even when the 
first three Evangelists conduct Jesus to the borders of Judea, they there 
lose sight οἵ him, and John takes up the narrative and accompanies him 
in his course. He, however, does not follow him back into Galilee, but 
forsakes him on the borders of that country, which was the historical 
province of the other Evangelists. 

In the whole of John’s work, from the beginning of Christ’s ministry 
to the end, there is but one discourse which was uttered in Galilee (6: 
22.7: 1); and, the days of the passion excepted, there are but three 
facts which he has in common with the other Evangelists. Two of 
them are the feeding of the five thousand, and the voyage on the sea 
connected with it, in which Jesus appears to the disciples in the storm 
for their deliverance (6: 1—22). These he has repeated, because they 
were indispensable as introductory to the discourses above mentioned, 
which immediately follow. ‘There is, besides, the fact of the anointing 
of Jesus by Mary (John 12: 3), which is repeated for the reasons given 
in the 53d §. 

Thus the first three Evangelists occupy themselves with occurrences 
in Galilee, and John with those in Judea and its capital. In this way 
we obtain a complete account of the last three years of Jesus’ life. 


§ 57. 


We may hence explain the assertion that in John’s Gospel the repre- 
sentation of Christ is very different from that contained in the other 
Gospels. He is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, as Paul says; 
it is only his situation which is different. While travelling in retired 
parts of Galilee or on the shore of Gennesareth, whither he was followed 
by curious multitudes who were readily susceptible of good impressions, 
he merely discourses ees moral virtues and piety, declares his 

5 


434 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


purpose only in parables, ieaves the multitude to conjecture his com- 
mission, and obtains from a few individuals the confession that he is 
the Christ, the Son of God (Matth. 8: 29. Mark 5: 7. Luke 8: 28. Matth. 
14: 33. 16:16. Mark 8:29. Luke 10: 20. Mark 1: 24. Luke 4: 34. 
Mark 3: 11. Luke 4: 41). He heals unfortunate wretches by miracu- 
lous power, and in doing so seeks to attract as little attention as possi- 
ble, that he may not excite any ferment in the minds of the people, 
which might place him ina false light. A single tumultuous assem- 
blage might have defeated all his purposes, and have subjected him to 
the death of a malefactor. 

His situation in Judea was very widely different. There he had no 
cause for any apprehension of the kind. The Jews were not favorable 
towards him; least of all at Jerusalem. Then, too, he had nowhere 
so much reason to unfold his commission and purposes, to explain what 
he intended to effect and the authority on which he rested his enter- 
prise, as in the metropolis. In remote and thinly peopled districts, in 
discourses in the country, it was of little importance; the only proper 
place for such a disclosure was the central point of Judaism, the scene 
of festival assemblies in which innumerable multitudes were gathered 
together, the seat of religious authority and sacred learning. It was 
necessary that he should proclaim his secret here; for from this place 
alone could it go forth into the world. Hence, what in Galilee he only 
permitted the people to conjecture, he himself declares openly in Jeru- 
salem, and proclaims himself at the feasts as one sent from God, as the 
Son who was with the Father before the world was, as the Messiah and 
the author of a new dispensation; and this so Jong and so Joudly that 
his claims and the acknowledgement of them on the part of the people, 
eventually impelled the priests and others belonging to the class of 
learned men to effect his execution by calling to their aid the Roman 
authority. 

He was thus assured that he was not to disappear like a phenomenon 
only partially seen and understood, nor even to meet an unheeded 
death in a remote district ; but, that he was to be condemned to suffer 
and expire in the far-famed city of Jerusalem, in the sight of innume- 
rable witnesses from Asia and other quarters of the world, and that he 
would be commiserated and revered by them as a sacrifice to lofiy pur- 
poses. 

Such a public exposition of his high origin and destination was given 
by Jesus but once out of Judea, viz. at Capernaum, the place which he 
had selected as the point to extend information respecting himself and 
his Sci through Galilee and the region round about (John 6: 26 
—64). 

When, however, he appears in the country in John’s Gospel, his pro- 
cedure is the same as represented by the other Evangelists. Observe 
the manner in which he instructs the woman of Samaria in a skilfully 
conducted conversation : his religion was confined to no people and no 
place ; it was henceforth to extend itself to all the inhabitarts of the earth, 
enlightening the soul, and diffusing true ideas of God (John 4: 4—31). 
We may infer from this example how little occasion there would have 
been for the idea that Christ is not the same in all the Evangelists, had 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 435 


John related those things which occurred in the country, rather than 
those which took place in the metropolis. 

Jesus’ custom of connecting some moral lesson with the occurrences 
of the moment, of linking some instructive saying with an object pre- 


sented by the occasion; his mode of clothing doctrines in figures, and ~/ 


of deriving tropes and allegorical ornament from things which were im- 
mediately before his eyes, are so impossible to be mistaken in this story 
of his interview with the woman of Samaria, that we in vain seek to 
discern in it another Messiah; its contents are not to be thus perverted. 
What our Lord says is linked, after the manner of Socrates, with the 
nearest objects ; with the water, a favorite image of doctrine in the 
east ; with the food which is brought to him, from which he draws a 
figurative expression to denote that his mind was occupied then about 
higher matters ; with the fields of corn, whose situation immediately un- 
der his eye suggested the figure he employs. On approaching Naplou- 
sa, the narrow valley widens into a plain about two miles in length, which 
presents a rich prospect of blooming and fertile fields,! well suited to 
suggest to Jesus the figure respecting the blissful result which he hoped 
would ensue from the inculcation of his doctrines. ‘The Samaritan wo- 
man could not comprehend his words. 'This was very natural from her 
circumstances; she could suppose anything rather than that a Jew 
should instruct herin an affable manner. She regarded him as a proph- 
et, because he knew her most secret affairs. Is this so very wrong and 
absurd? ‘The woman judged precisely like many others. In the opin- 
ion of the Syrians, the prophet Elisha knew the most secret intentions 
of the king of Syria (2 Kings 6:12). Daniel knew what Nebuchad- 
nezzar had dreamed and had himself forgotten. The Jews required of 
Bar-Cocba, when he claimed to be the Messiah, that he should divine 
the thoughts of men by his sense of smell without seeing them,” M777 
Pate 

; Not to mention such language in Luke as recurs in John almost lit- 
erally (17: 3. 13:3. 3:5 and John 8:56), we have in Luke 10: 21— 
25 (comp. Matth. 11:25—27), an example of the general style of Je- 
sus’ language to his disciples on solemn occasions ; and this same spirit 
and tone I recognize in John’s account of the leave which Jesus took 
of his disciples. ‘The occasion was only more solemn; a great event, 
the abrupt termination of his career, was at hand. 

Judas Iscariot had left the company to commit his traitorous act (13: 
31). Now, said Jesus, is the Son of man glorified; I am but a little 
while with you; I leave you the commandment of love which I have ex- 
emplified. He then exhorts his disciples not to despond at his death. 
He is going to his Father to prepare a place for them; the protection of 
the Father will follow them here below ; moreover, the Father will send 
them the Spirit which shall reveal all things to them. He now utters 
his farewell to his disciples; but says that he will come again; then 
bids them rise, and go hence (14: 31), ἐγείρεσϑε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦϑεν.3 


1 Maundrell, Monconys. 
2 Geimar. Hierosolym. Tr. Sanhedr. c. XI. 


3 Some have supposed these words to be a gloss, without any reason, and in 
opposition to the evidence of all the Mss. and versions now extant. 


436 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


While they were seated, the discourse maintained the tender form of 
conversation ; but after having risen, he proceeds, while standing, to ex- 
hort them to united and persevering efforts in concurrence with his pur- 
poses, and with increased earnestness he admonishes them to love each 
other and himself, and to expect and endure with a resigned temper a 
cruel lot; again promises them the Spirit; begins to mention more fre- 
quently his approaching death; and silence reigns among the disciples. 
No one presumes to speak. Once only they question among themselves 
what is the meaning of the words: ‘‘ A little while and ye shall not see 
me, and again a little while and ye shall seeme?” He perceives this, 
38) explains himself; they believe that they now understand him (16: 
33). 

The occasion becomes more solemn; the discourse takes a higher 
tone ; Jesus stands at the goal of his career. At this moment his con- 
science bears him witness that he has accomplished the commission giv- 
en him by the Father to bring truth intothe world. He, moreover, with 
deep emotion commends his disciples to his Father’s protection ; and 
not only they, but all who should believe in him (Chap. 18). Every 
thought and feeling bears marks of belonging to that eventful hour. 

And is not all this in accordance with the character of Christ? Is it 
not the farewell of an exalted and noble soul, which, untroubled by the 
thought of impending suffering, occupies itself wholly with its lofty 
schemes and with the business of instructing and consoling those whom 
it leaves behind! And I must further ask, could the gradation in the 
conversation possibly be more natural? Can there be imagined a more 
beautiful rise than is here presented ; first mutual remark, then increas- 
ing silence among the listeners, broken only by a low question, till ulti- 
mately the last whisper dies away, and in the universal stillness the 
soul mounts upward to its loftiest elevation ! 

Were this discourse clothed in the elegant language of a Plato or a 
Xenophon, with what admiration should we read it! But the writer 
was unable to impart such a recommendation to his narrative; imper- 
fection in the art of composition is plainly visible. 


§ 58. 

We must not content ourselves with the observations we have just made, 
inasmuch as there have recently appeared other harsh charges against 
this Gospel which we ought not to neglect to scrutinize.! The first al- 
legation we have heard. But, in order to destroy all confidence in this 
writer, it is attempted to prove that he was not an eye-witness of the 
facts he relates, and therefore we cannot be sure of their accuracy. Let 
us then take a closer survey of the contents of his book. A part of it 
relates to what befell our Lord in the capital; a part to his discourses ; 
and a partto hisacts. We will subjoin a few observations on certain 
particulars worthy of notice. 

1. That our Lord should have visited Jerusalem but once during his 
ministry, viz. at the time of his death, is incredible, considering the in- 
stitutions of his nation, which were respected by him, and the notoriety 


at C. Th. Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Ap. 
indole et origine. Lips. 1820. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 437 


which it was essential that he should gain. It is plain, too, from Luke, 
that he visited Jerusalem several times; and thus, at the outset, the 
general tenor of John’s work is sustained. 

If we examine particularly what is stated to have befallen Jesus in 
Jerusalem, we can perceive the gradual progress of things to the final 
result, his death. At his first appearance in the city he gained many 
adherents, but found cause for distrust (2: 23, 24). The second time 
of his coming certain zealots openly opposed him (5: 16,18), and in 
their malice plotted against his life (8: 1). Their design, being noised 
abroad, was notorious among the people when he appeared in their midst 
the third time (7: 25). Still their wish to lay hands on him was 
stronger than their resolution (7: 30). When the Pharisees and chief 
priests heard what was the popular feeling in regard to him (7: 32), they 
sent public officers to take him prisoner; but these likewise wanted 
courage to execute the order; he was befriended, too, by his secret ad- 
herents (7: 44—52). The wish to get possession of his person contin- 
ued, but was not carried into effect (8: 20). The zealots on this ac- 
count entertained increased hope, particularly at the last feast but one 
which he attended, of finding a good opportunity to stone him (8: 59. 10: 
31,32, 33. 11:8). But Jesus withdrew himself from danger, so long as the 
mode or time of the death meditated for him was not that which was ap- 
pointed. The chief priests vacillated a long time, until, when the third 
passover was nigh at hand, the Sanhedrim, incensed by recent occur- 
rences, declared his death to be necessary, and consulted together as to 
the measures to be taken for effecting it (11: 49—53). The council 
soon after issued an injunction that whoever knew where Jesus was 
should give information (11: 57); and at last one of his disciples offer- 
ed to point out his nightly resort. 

This representation does away all that is sudden and accidental in 
the death of Jesus; and we have instead a regular chain of circumstan- 
ces, which are undeniably in accordance with probability, The ulti- 
mate event, which stands isolated in the other Gospels, appears no 
longer a surprising thing, occasioned by asingle and brief visit on the 
part of Jesus (his last one) to Jerusalem. 

2. Many of the discourses of Jesus were interrupted by objections on 
the part of one or more of the multitude about him ; and hence they rath- 
er follow the lead of these objections than their own natural train. 
Our Lord, however, generally endeavored to return to the point of depar- 
ture; and hence necessarily arose repetitions, which would not have 
taken place had his discourse proceeded undisturbed. In tie discourse 
contained in 7: 14—36, he was three times interrupted by cavils, and 
once by an attempt to take him prisoner (v. 15, 20, 27—33, 35); in the 
one in 8: 12—59, such cavils were advanced no less than ten different 
times (v. 13, 19, 22, 25, 33, 39, 41, 48, 52,57). Now who but one 
who had himself heard these various cavils, and the turns and cir- 
cumlocutions of the discourse, could know all these particulars? Evi- 
dently, he who records them, whoever he was, was himself one of the 
listeners, or else wrote from the dictation of one who was alistener. He 
would have been remarkably fortunate at a later period to procure the 
most general outlines of these occurrences through a third or fourth hand. 


438 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


He even knew the circumstances of the confidential intercourse of 
our Lord with his disciples at the time of his taking leave of them (13: 
36—chap. 15); the question put by Peter, the apprehension expressed 
by Thomas, the request of Philip, and the doubt of Judas, not Iscariot (13: 
36. 14: 5, 8, 22). A similar case occurs earlier (12: 20, 28). Just so 
on another occasion, while the rest of the Evangelists content them- 
selves with a general account (Matth. 14: 15, 18. Mark 6: 35, 38. Luke 
9: 12, 13), he remembers what our Lord said to Philip, the reply of the 
latter, and the remark then made by Andrew (John 6: 5—10). 

We must not forget to mention here the references to time and place, 
such as are presented at the beginning of the discourse which was ten 
times interrupted, and also in the one immediately preceding. Both 
were uttered on the great day of the feast of tabernacles. ‘They are 
separated by an intervening occurrence, viz. the decision respecting the 
adulteress, which constitutes one of the most difficult as well as most 
beautiful passages in this Gospel.! An illumination in the temple, which 
cast a bright light in the western part of the city on the fronts of the 
houses where the booths were erected, and the custom of drawing wa- 
ter, with which the people amused themselves and which they hoped 
would induce God to bless them with abundant rains, graced the festiv- 
ity of the feast of tabernacles.2, This custom of drawing water was 
alluded to in the exclamation, “If any man thirst let him come unto 
me and drink” (7: 37). The hymns which were sung in the temple dur- 
ing the feast were certainly not without allusions to the blessing of the 
approaching season of rain; and probably suggested to Jesus the inspired 
passage which he adduced in confirmation of his promise to confer bless- 
ings on those who should come to him (7: 38). The following words 
of the Talmud deserve notice: The place is called the house for draw- 
ing water; but there they drew the Holy Spirit.2 The illumination 
suggested to Jesus the figure in 8: 12, where he calls upon men to fol- 
low him that they may have the light of life. It is true, as has been ob- 
jected, that there was probably no illumination’ on that very day, the 
last day of the feast; but the enormous candlesticks, by which the il- 
Jumination was produced, were before his eyes, and reminded those pres- 
ent of the light they had diffused. For these candlesticks were set up 
in the court of the women‘ which was adjoining to the yafoqvdaxcor,® 


1 [ have presented my exposition of this narrative in the following treatise : 
De conjugii Christiani vinculo indissolubili, commentatio exegetica. Frib. 1816. 
§ 11 seq. 

2 In regard to the custom of drawing water, see Mishna, Tract. de Tabernac. 
c. V.segm. l.andc.4,segm, 9.10. “Distribute water at the feast of water, so 
that thou mayest be blessed with the annual rains.’”’ In Tosaphtha, Rosh ha- 
shona (De prine. anni) c. J. sect. 8, and Tosaphtha, Succa, c. III. n. 10, we find 
it threatened that whoever did not visit Jerusalem at this feast, should have no 
rain upon his lands. 


3 Gemar. Hieros. Tr. Succa, c. V. segm.]. masny m2 maven md 
soy $y wpm min oan pensy; and Isaiah 12: 3, piwwn ov ENaNw 
mw NTE. 

4 Respecting the illumination, see Mishna, De Tabernac. c. V. segm. 2, 3. 
Not only psalms but hymns and songs of praise were sung by pious men in the 
torch-dance, which they conducted with much skill. Ibid. seg. 4. 


5 Lightfoot, Descript. Templi Hierosol. c. XVIII. and XIX. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 439 


or receptacle for the offerings, in which our Saviour spoke these words 
(8: 20). 

3. Let us now observe the acts of Jesus; 6. σ΄. his healing the man 
who was born blind (9: 1—41), or his raising Lazarus (11: 1—46). 
The latter narrative in some parts displays the rural simplicity and 
sweetness of an idyl; and both have in common the characteristic of 
great particularity. Is it possible that the various feelings of the by- 
standers, their thoughts, their language, their behaviour, and the inci- 
dental circumstances connected with the occurrence, should be exhibi- 
ted with more exactness! We have before us rather a lively and ani- 
mated picture than a mere description. If we will but examine these 
narratives without prepossessions of any kind, and instead of forcing 
every thing to a previous opinion, permit our judgment to take its spon- 
taneous course, we cannot but see evidence in the account of what was 
said and. done, that the writer was a listener and spectator. 

But this very story of Lazarus is the source of a multitude of ques- 
tions, which are supposed, by those who ask them, to be so many objec- 
tions. If Jesus wished to raise the dead, it is said, men are constantly 
dying; why did he not perform the miracle on some dead person close 
at hand in Jerusalem? [ reply by another question: Why the one near- 
est at hand, and not rather a good man, and a friend? How many 
friends had Jesus at Jerusalem? Was any one of these, was Nicode- 
mus, was Joseph of Arimathea, at that time dead? Why, it is said, 
perform the miracle in so insignificant a place as Bethany? ‘True, it 
was not a place of much importance; but it was in the vicinity and in 
sight of Jerusalem. The miracle was performed amid a large con- 
course of people, and, as it were, in Jerusalem itself (11: 19). Though 
inconceivable, yet it is true, that some were incredulous, and told the 
Pharisees what had occurred (11: 40). The case was the same, as, ac- 
cording to the accounts of the other Gospels, it always was, when the 
Pharisees or their adherents witnessed the works of Jesus (Matth. 9: 34. 
12: 14. Mark 3: 6. Luke 6: 11. Matth. 12: 22—24. Luke I1: 14, 15. 13: 4). 
They were wilfully obstinate (Matth. 12: 31,32. Mark 3:29). It would 
even have been singular had no one of the spies of the Pharisees been 
present. Malice on the part of some is essential to the completeness of 
the picture, which displays, simply but happily, the various dispositions 
and feelings of all the spectators. 

Finally, by taking away this story we destroy one link in the chain 
of events. The rejoicing with which the people celebrated Christ’s entry 
into Jerusalem becomes less intelligible ; as also the sudden determination 
of the council to condemn him to death, while before they had not been 
able to adhere permanently to any such resolution. 

4. Let us now turn our attention to other instances of particularity. . 
The writer often designates the time of the occurrences he narrates. 
The next day (τ ἐπαύριον) after the inquiry made by the Pharisees, 
John the Baptist saith ete. (1; 29). The day after, he points out our Lord 
to two of his disciples who were the first disciples of Jesus (1: 35—42). 
The day following, Andrew brings his brother to Jesus. One day later, 
Jesus attaches to himself Philip and Nathaniel (1: 44—51). Three days 
after this occurrence, our Lord appears at Cana (2: 1 seq.). He leaves 
Sychar after residing there two days (4: 43). He staid two days after 


440 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


hearing of the illness of Lazarus (11: 6). After Lazarus was raised 
from the dead he went once more into retirement (11: 54), and six days 
before the passover appeared again in Bethany (12: 1). On the follow- 
ing day, when he went to Jerusalem, the people came forth to meet him 
(12: 9—12). He sometimes even designates the hour. It was the tenth 
hour when Andrew first visited our Lord (1: 39); the sixth, when our 
Lord arrived at Jacob’s well (4: 6); the seventh, when the nobleman’s 
son at Capernaum began to recover (4: 52). 

To these may be added other minute circumstances and designations 
which could have been known only to aconterhporary. Not long after the 
first passover, there was much water at Salim (3:23). A certain man, 
whom Jesus healed, was 38 years old (5:5). The disciples were five 
and twenty or thirty furlongs from the land when they saw Jesus (6: 19). 
The servant whose ear was cut off, was named Malchus (18: 10); it 
was a kinsman of this servant who consummated Peter’s fall (18: 26). 
The soldiers divided the upper garment into four parts; for it was a 
τετράδιον which guarded the cross (19: 23. Comp. Acts 12: 4). The 
under garment was without seam (yerwy ἄρῥαφος, 19:23), like a priest’s 
under garment (χέτῶν οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων, ὥστε Gatos, Jos. 
Ant. L. Til. c. 7. n. 4). It was therefore not divided; but lots were 
cast for it. The weight of Mary’s ointment was a Litra (12:3). The 
articles used in preparing the body for burial, weighed about one hun- 
dred Litrai (19:39). When the disciples came to the sepulchre, they 
found the linen clothes lying apart, as also the sudarium wrapped to- 
gether by itself (20:7). Some traits of similar particularity have al- 
ready been mentioned above (ὃ 54), in treating of his corrections of 
his predecessors and the additional completeness which he has imparted 
to the history. 


ᾧ 59. 


We cannot discuss particular passages in which writers have contri- 
ved to discover references to later circumstances, or absurd explanations, 
and from which the inference has been drawn that the author wrote ab- 
surdly, and at a later period than has been supposed ; but we will en- 
deavor to defend him from the charge of ignorance of history and of 
the geography of the country. 

It is objected against him that he places Bethany on the river Jordan, 
while it was really situated very near Jerusalem. He certainly does 
mention a Bethany on the Jordan in 1:28. (Bethany is the true read- 
ing here ; Bethabara is only a conjecture of Origen’s, which was 
made current by Chrysostom’s recommendation). But who can believe 
that an author, who states with so much precision the distance of Beth- 
any from Jerusalem (viz. 15 furlongs, 11: 18), should have imagined the 
same town to have been on the Jordan, and even on the eastern side of 
it? We shall rather be satisfied that he meant to distinguish two differ- 
ent places, if we take the following passages into consideration. Our 
Lord went again to the eastern side of the Jordan, to the place where 
John at first baptized (10: 40); that is,in other words, to Bethany (1: 
28). From this place he went to Bethany, the town of Mary and Mar- 
tha (11: 1). Are not here two Bethanys? Although the orthography 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 441 


of both is the same in Greek, it was not so, probably, in Hebrew. The 
Bethany near Jerusalem, it is well known, was called "777 n72; the 
one on the Jordan was probably “2:8 ΓΞ, @ place for ships, nearly the 
same as Bethabara, M73» M2, a place for crossing, a ferry. It was, 
then, a thoroughfare from the east country to Palestine and back again ; 
where John must have found a great number of hearers and of candi- 
dates for baptism. 

The place which the Baptist chose for the second theatre of his la- 
bors, was Anon, near Salim (ἐν diva, ἐγγὺς τοῦ Sadeiu, 3: 23). It 
is objected that “ urbs Ainon non exstitit.’” This is admitted ; but did 
John baptize in a city? So unfortunate an objection should never have 
been made by an ezegete. 

A city is mentioned which is called Sychar, Seyao or Svyag (4: 5). 
This, it is said, “ alia nisi Sichema esse non potest.” And yet it was a 
different place. Sichem, Flavia Neapolis, and Sychar, belong to differ- 
ent periods, as I shall show in my Geography of Canaan, which I hope 
will soon be finished. Sychar, however, does not denote either the 
drunken, from 723, nor the deceitful or faithless, from Πρ υΐ ; it is not any 
opprobrious name. It was spelt Ὁ, as was long ago remarked ;! 
the burial-place, where were deposited the bones of Joseph (Josh. 24: 
32), and according to the common report in the times of our Saviour, 
the remains of the twelve patriarchs (Acts 7: 15, 16) ; as also, according 
to the declaration of the modern Samaritans, the remains of all the 
prophets. 


§ 60. 


John is, moreover, charged with ignorance of history and of Jewish 
customs, on account of the words, ‘Caiaphas being the high priest that 
same year’ (11: 49); as though he meant to have it understood that 
they were changed every year. Yet, whatever he meant, he was ap- 
parently sure of it; for he soon after repeats the declaration, that Caia- 
phas was the high priest that year (18: 13). 

Let us not grudge the pains we must take in examining anew a sub- 
ject which has been often discussed. We shall go as far back as is ne- 
cessary in order to set the circumstances of the time in a clear light. 
After Tiberius had attained the Roman sovereignty, he recalled the pro- 
curator Annius Rufus from Judea, and sent thither in his stead Vale- 
rius Gratus, who administered the government of Judea eleven years, 
consequently till some time in the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius. 
Gratus deprived Annas of the office of high priest, and gave it to Ish- 
mael, the son of Phabi, whom, likewise, he soon deprived of it, in order 
to bestow it on Eleazar,the son of Annas. He held the office a year, 
and was then forced to yield it to Simon, the son of Camithus ; who, in 
turn, held the office for hardly the same length of time, and was then 
succeeded by Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas.” 

Caiaphas retained this dignity, the highest in his nation, until Tibe- 


1 Cellarii Dissert. Academic. Diss. 6ta De Gent. Samarit. Histor. et Cere- 
mon. ὃ 15. Lightfoot, Chorograph. Joanni premissa, C. IV. § 4. 
2 Jos. Antiq. L. XVIII. ¢. 2. n, 2. 
56 


ἢ 
Me 


΄΄ ye, 
2 bg 4 
442 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


rius sent Vitellius to Syria to regulate or, more correctly speaking, to 
embroil the affairs of Parthia. Vitellius, after his consulship, was set 
over the province of Syria.’ which he governed till the twentieth year 
of Tiberius. For there were but three consulships after his, in the time 
of this emperor: in the third the world was delivered from this execra- 
ble sovereign.” 

When Vitellius travelled over his province, and came to Judea, whose 
procurator was under the authority of the pretor of Syria, he was mag- 
nificently received at Jerusalem. He requited the reception by marks 
of favor, and, to please the people, deprived Caiaphas of the office of 
high priest.2 This probably happened in the first year of his pretor- 
ship; so that Caiaphas held this dignity as long, at least, as from the 
twelfth to the twenty-first year of the reign of Tiberius, 1, e. nine years; 
an unheard of thing in those as well as in succeeding times. 

Jonathan, another son of Annas, was next appointed high priest.* 
When Vitellius, however, went to Jerusalem the second time, in the 
twenty-third and last year of the reign of Tiberius, he deposed Jona- 
than likewise, and made Theophilus, the third son of Annas, his suc- 
cessor.2> The rapidity with which the high priests, with the exception 
of Caiaphas, passed before the eyes of the nation, would furnish a good 
reason why John added the remark in question. 

2. But we are led to take a step further. There were at that time 
in the Jewish council a great number of ἀρχιερεῖς, persons of the rank 
of high priests, two of whom, according to the Gospel of John, con- 
ducted the examination of our Saviour. He was first brought before 
Annas, and then before Caiaphas (18: 18 and 24). Now which of 
these two was the high priest? It was incumbent on the writer to 
answer this question for his readers. He has done so, once previously 
in 11: 49, and here again in 18: 13. He tells us that Caiaphas was 
high priest that year. 

3. What follows may be regarded as completely decisive. Luke de- 
signates the time when our Lord was consecrated, not only by stating 
the year of the emperor’s reign, but also by mentioning the names of 
those who at that time occupied the highest stations in Palestine, viz. 
Pontius Pilate, the tetrarchs Herod, Philip, and Lysanias, and then the 
high priests Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3: 1, 2). How happens it that 
he names two high priests, if there was only one? How happens it that 
he names them in the order of their age, and consequently gives Annas 
the precedence, if Caiaphas was the only high priest? Most certainly we 
have here two high priests at the same time. Not long afterward An- 
nas appears again with precedence before Caiaphas (Acts 4: 5, 6), 
which could have been due to him only as being really high priest. 

Yet the sacred functions belonging to this office could not be perform- 
ed by more than oneat atime. They must, therefore, have taken turns 
each year, or each feast. As the presidency of the council and the 


τ Sueton. Vitell. c. 2. 
2 Tacit. Ann. L. VI.c. 31, 6. 40, c. 45. 
3 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. ¢ 4. n.3. 

4 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 4. π. 3. 
5 Jos, Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. π. 3. 


Pe 

OF THE NEW ee 443 
supreme direction of affairs were connected with this office, a yearly 
change must have been most convenient. So much is deducible mere- 
ly from the nature of the case. Some circumstances contained in the 
preceding history will serve to elucidate this subject still further. Of 
all the rivals of Caiaphas, Annas was the most powerful. He had al- 
ready held the office of high priest himself, and succeeded in elevating 
his five sons, one after another, to the same dignity ; viz. Eleazar before 
Caiaphas, and after Caiaphas, Jonathan, Theophilus, one whose name 
is unknown, and Annas the younger.! , Caiaphas could not have sus- 
tained himself for so many years against the influence and wealth of 
such acompetitor, had he not consented to a measure which would dis- 
arm his opposition. For his own security, Caiaphas was compelled to 
permit him to share his office, and to enter into a compact, which, it seems, 
was even ratified by a family connexion. Caiaphas took to wife the 
daughter of Annas (John 18: 13). As usual however, without friendly 
feelings, two could notlong hold the same dignity together. The silence 
of Josephus cannot be adduced against this, as he had good reason to 
pass over in silence so discreditable a transaction in regard to the high 
priest’s office. Neither does he state any thing of this kind as to a 
single one of the many who held the office; although we cannot doubt 
that more than one obtained it by bribery or purchase. At any rate his 
mere silence cannot outweigh the express declaration of Luke. Annas 
and Caiaphas were, therefore, high priests at the same time, but per- 
formed the functions of their office alternately. 

Not Jess stress is laid by the opponent of John’s history on the irre- 
concilable discrepancy which is said to exist between it and the other 
Gospels in regard to the last supper, and the death of Jesus. Let us 
attempt to reconcile it. : 

Some days before the passover our Lord entered Jerusalem in con- 
siderable state (Matth. 21: 1 seq. Mark 11:1. Luke 19:29); but re- 
turned to Bethany to lodge (Matth. 21: 17. Mark 11: 11). He visited 
Jerusalem and the temple a second time (Matth. 21: 18. Mark 11: 15), 
and a third (Mark 11: 27. Matth. 21:23). ‘There now remained two 
days before the feast of unleavened bread (Mark 14: 1. Matth. 26: 2). 
Hence five days elapsed after his entry into Jerusalem before the feast of 
unleavened bread. Justso in John: Jesus arrived at Bethany six days 
before the passover (12:1); and on the next day, τῇ ἐπαύριον, i. e. 
five days before the passover, our Lord made his entry into Jerusalem 
(12: 12). As yet, there is not the slightest discrepancy. Now if, as 
we design to show, the feast of the passover that year began, according 
to the- custom of the Jews, on Thursday evening; reckoning back six 
days, Thursday excluded, we find that our Saviour arrived at Bethany 
on Friday of the preceding week, and visited the temple on the Sab- 
bath, amid the acclamations of the people. He visited it a second and 
third time on our Sunday and Monday; after which there were two 
days, Tuesday and Wednesday, remaining before the ‘Thursday on 
which the ἄζυμα commenced. 

Before speaking of the passover, we will first inquire when our Lord 
died? He died and was buried on the preparation-day, the παρασκευή 


1 Jos. Ant. L. XX. ο, 9. at the beginning. 


* 


444 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


(Matth. 27: 62. Mark 15: 42. Luke 23: 54). In John’s Gospel too, it 
is stated that it was the παρασκευή on which he was crucified (19: 14), 
taken down from the cross (19: 31), and carried to the sepulchre (19: 
42). This day corresponds to our Friday; for the παρασκευή was the 
προσάββατον (Mark 15; 42), or the day immediately followed by the 
Sabbath (Luke 23: 54). This Sabbath, however, was one of peculiar 
importance (John 19: 91), because the passover fell upon it (John 19: 
14, ἣν yao παρασκευή τοῦ πασχα). So far there is nothing which dis- 
turbs the harmony of the Evangelists. 

The difficulty lies elsewhere, viz. in the expression, the first day of 
unleavened bread. The disciples inquired of our Lord on the first day 

of unleavened bread, τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, where he would have the 
passover prepared, and immediately received command what to do in or- 
der to make ready the passover (Matth. 26: 17. Mark 14: 12. Luke 22: 
7). According to Mosaic institution, the passover began to be observed 
on the 14th of Nisan at evening, and extended to the evening of the 
15th, ὉΠΞ qs 13. (Ex. 12: 6 seq. Num. 9: 1—6. Deut. 16: 58) ; 
and at this time ὑῶν σε ἢ bread began to be eaten (Ex. 12: 18. Num. 
28:17). In the case under consideration, therefore, the first day of 
unleavened bread was the Sabbath, on which the passover happened to 
fall. Now according to the Evangelists (it is objected), Jesus observed 
the passover on the first day of unleavened bread ; and yet on the first 
day of unleavened bread, or on the Sabbath, he was already in the 
grave. This objection is unanswerable, if we decide the case solely ac- 
cording to the Mosaic regulations; if we do not take into account in- 
novations which gradually crept in. 

After their return from Babylon the Jews were more religious than 
they had ever been before. In many things they were desirous of do- 
ing beyond what Moses required of them, and overburdened themselves 
with countless ceremonies. ‘They were not content merely to keep the 
feasts which were ordained by Moses, but desired to honor and sanctify 
them still more by observing the preceding day ; and in this the Galile- 
ans even surpassed the Jews. When this custom was first introduced 
cannot be ascertained. Mention is made of it in the book of Judith 
(8:6). Inthe days of our Saviour, however, as it seems from the Gos- 


pels, it was universally prevalent. 


The fishermen and millers of Tiberias, Sephor, and Acco, observed 


Ὁ the day preceding the feast, and left off their usual occupations. In 


Judea it was customary on the day before the passover to work till noon; 
but in Galilee no work was done during the whole day.? The duties 
of the temple on the day before the passover, we are told by the Mish- 
na, were the same as on the Sabbath, except that the priest, contrary to 
the wish of the wise, was in the habit of cleansing the court from the 


1 Gemar. Hieros. Tract. Moed. Katon.c. ]].seg.5. yona-u seer ΤΕΣ bane 
tapi. Se ἸΒΊΓΙΞ ΠΝ rived ΝῈΣ chases voces. asp cores 

2 Mischn. Tract. de Pasch. ¢. 14. seg.5. ‘aera mexte yee sm nti. 
sep es ἘΞΥΥΕῚΣ ansad Ssthen: msn πὸ ERED 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 445 


blood.1. The Jerusalem Gemara asserts unconditionally that the day 
before the passover is as sacred as the passover itself. ὰ 

The new opinion in regard to the sacred character of the day prece- 
ding the passover brought along with it a change in respect to the exclu- 
sion of leaven from the houses. It could no longer be used on a day 
which was now esteemed holy. On this account all the places where 
Jeaven might be deposited were examined at candle-lighting on the eve- 
ning of the day before; i. e. on Thursday evening, for the Jewish and 
Babylonish day commenced at evening.? This was the practice in Ju- 
dea, although the whole of the day previous was not accounted sacred. 
In Galilee, however, where the S25, or observance, was more strict, 
and the whole day was holy, no work being performed upon it, it was 
necessary that this examination should be made before the commence- 
ment of the day, i. e. before the evening of Thursday. Hence Thurs- 
day before evening might, from the custom in Galilee, be called the time 
of unleavened bread. It may even have been the case that the natural 
day, Thursday, was universally termed the day of unleavened bread ; 
for in several instances in the sacred writings the word day is thus used 
te mean only the natural day. 

But a difficulty, at least an apparent one, still remains. _ And the first Lf 
day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover,” ὅτε τὸ πάσχα all. 
ἔϑυον (Mark 14: 12). When who killed the passover? Is it meant, 
when the Jews killed the passover? By no means; for they ate the pass- 
over on Friday evening (John 18:28). Mark is not speaking of the 
Jews, but the disciples, μαϑϑηταί; and means to say that they killed the 
passover the same day on which they made inquiry of Jesus in respect 
to it. The case is the same as to the words of Luke: ‘Then came 
the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed” (22: 7). 
The words ὑπὸ τῶν μαδσητῶν, by the disciples, are understood; must, 
in order that they might have the pleasure of keeping it with our Lord. 
Nor is there anything contradictory to this in John’s account: “‘ Now 
before the feast of the passover (πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, i. e. before 
the Jews killed the paschal lamb’, when Jesus knew that his hour was 
come, etc. (13: 1). 

It was on Thursday, then, on the first day of unleavened bread, at 
evening, that our Lord kept the passover. Before he sat down with the 
disciples to his supper,the supper of the new covenant, he girded himself 
and washed their feet, as was the custom on the part of hosts towards their 
guests (John 13: L—12 seq.). 

But did our Lord slay the passover one day earlier than the Jews? 
Why not? It was not his design to render the 14th day of Nisan, or the 
paschal lamb, or any of the soleinnities of the Jewish passover, sacred 
in the estimation of his followers. Here we mightrest the matter; but 
we add further the following remark. It is, nevertheless , probable that 
Jesus kept the owes in accordance with the rites 5 of his nation at 

1 Misch. Tr. de Pasch. ¢. 5. seg. 8. sbeorses onvse ss bins wees 
vnesn eth Bboy nad ON Son SR eAw 

2 Gemar. Hieros. Tr. Chagiga. 6. III. seg. 7s masy> Mav 91} MOET MES 399 4D 
3 Miseh. Ty. de Pasch.e. I. seg. 1 -ὰΣ Yen ΣᾺ Sa OI ΤΥΞ ΝΒ VR 
thom 


3 


446 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


that period. The custom of celebrating the preceding day in the 
temple, with as much solemnity as the feast-day itself, favored the 
opinion that the two days were equally holy; and from the positive 
declaration in the Gemara, that the day before the passover is as 
holy as the passover itself, it is a logical conclusion, that, at least under 
certain circumstances, the passover might be eaten on the former. Je- 
sus justifies himself by circumstances for keeping the passover on this 
day. His words are (Matth. 26: 18), Say unto him (the man), the 
Master saith, My time is at hand (Ὁ χαιρὺς μου ἐγγύς gore’ 1. 6, the 
time of my death); as much as to say, I have no time to lose, if I in- 
tend to eat the passover. If it had never been allowable to eat the pass- 
over on the day preceding the feast, the reason assigned would not have 
justified Jesus in doing so, nor could it have made his message to the 
man at all intelligible to him.. Now before the feast of the passover, 
Jesus knowing (says John in exculpation of him, as it were), that the 
hour of his departure from this world was at hand (13: 1), sat down to 
supper with his disciples. 

But if the day preceding the passover was so holy, how could the 
high priests and their adherents occupy themselves upon it with the tri- 
al of Jesus? They could do so without scruple; for among the Jews 
it was allowable to employ the whole morning in business and labor. 
It was only among the Galileans that the stricter custom prevailed of 
keeping the entire day holy. 

Lastly, the writer has been charged with ignorance of the Jewish 
language, on account of the explanation contained in 9: 7, 21Awau, ὁ 
ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος, Siloam which is by interpretation Sent. 
The word occurs generally in this form (Siloam) in Josephus, who had 
before his eyes the national custom of his time. Its root is properly 
mB (Isai. 8: 6), which, indeed, in this form, does not signify one sent. 
But it must not be forgotten that in those times mysteries and occult 
meanings were sought for in proper names; as e. g. by Philo fre- 
quently, and sometimes by Paul: ‘‘ For this Agar is Mt. Sinai in Ara- 
bia” (Gal. 4: 25); Melchisedek signifies king of righteousness, and 
his being king of Salem denotes that he was king of peace (βασιλεὺς 
εἰρήνης, Heb. 7:2). This pursuit of etymological mysteries led to the 
higher sense of 4772 among the Jews. The word m>w has various 
meanings according to the vowels witi which it is furnished; and, 
among others that of M1b3 , ἀπεσταλμένος. Now it made no differ- 
ence whether the writer applied the concealed signification to Jesus who 
sent, or to the blind man who was sent; either application was in ac- 
cordance with the custom of learned Jews. 

The observation on which we are commenting arose from a peculiar- 
ity of the writer, who, penetrated with the conviction of the divine ori- 
gin of Jesus, was strongly disposed to discern something deep and mys- 
tic in his conduct and forwnes upon earth, and frequently introduces 
into his book remarks of this nature, which were sometimes his own, 
and sometimes made by his fellow-disciples (2: 17. 12: 16. 11: 51, δῷ. 
12: 37—42, 18: 32. 19:36, 37). Connected with this is another pecu- 
liarity viz. that of accompanying our Lord’s words with explanations 
(2: 22. 6: 64, 65, 71. 7: 39. 12: 33. 13: 11). 

We have now met the charge which has been made against the au- 


ἈΕῚ ΣΝ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 447 


thor of this Gospel, of blundering in respect to the geography, usages, and 
language of Palestine, and we recur to the more general observations 
on the characteristics of the book, which were deserted by us for the 
discussion in the preceding sections. ‘Those observations, and all that 
has been said of the procedure of the writer in relation to the particular 
parts of his Gospel (aside from the general structure of the whole, which 
we do not consider at present), conduct us to the following conclusions. 
His representations appear to have been drawn from the very life, and 
comprise the most minute references to the circumstances and deport- 
ment of the actors and spectators. They are always, however, simple 
and unlabored, as though they were ingenuous narratives of things wit- 
nessed by himself. ‘They resemble a picture in which every figure tells, 
each in its own way; in which notone is without its effect, and all have 
reference, more or less, according to their different characters, to the 
principal subject. The relation of what befell Jesus, which is inter- 
woven throughout the book, proceeds so naturally, that without it we 
should not have a complete developement of our Lord’s life and actions. 
In respect to minutia, such as the day, the hour etc., and generally in 
the circumstantial representation of occurrences, he is not equalled by 
any other of the Evangelists. In the very things which have been er- 
roneously regarded as mistakes, he has evinced a peculiarly accurate 
knowledge of circumstances of time and place. Discourses are given 
with such particularity as no one could have been able to exhibit, ex- 
cept a hearer of them, and sometimes involve allusions to places and 
circumstances, which would have escaped a writer not so well inform- 
ed. 
ᾧ 64. 

The first three Evangelists have divided their history into Journeys 
made from Capernaum. These form with them so many sections of 
the narrative. John, however, arranges events according to a chrono- 
logical principle of division. His chronology is regulated by means of 
six Jewish feasts, five of which were kept by Jesus at Jerusalem. 

The first of these feasts is a passover (2: 13); the second is merely 
called generally, a feast of the Jews (ἑορτὴ τῶν /ovdaiwy, 5:1). The 
rest, again, are all definitely designated by name. The third was a pass- 
over (6: 4), the next the feast of tabernacles (7: 2’, the next the feast 
of the dedication (10: 22), and then comes the final passover. 

In the ancient world, and particularly among the Jews, feasts were the 
popular measures of time. To neglect these, and attend only to local 
circumstances in the succession of events in John, would be rejecting 
definite statements of time, on account of a mere dispute about words. 
For the place and the time, the feast and the Holy City, are here insep- 
arable. The events occurred at a feast; the feast was in the Holy City. 
On any other supposition we must assume that the historian put the last 
feast before the first, and arranged them all solely according to his fan- 
cy; while the contrary is very clear. 

John, it seems, has mentioned but one of these feasts indefinitely, un- 
ie » general designation, ἑορτὴ τῶν Πουδαίων, a feast of the Jews 

6: 1). 4, 


448 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS ἢ 


Some have been inclined to consider this as having been a passover, 
because of the preceding conversation, in which our Lord among other 
things says: “Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh 
the harvest? Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are 
white already to harvest (4: 35). Now the harvest began at the end of 
the feast of the passover ; and therefore it has been inferred that the next 
feast was a feast of the passover.! 

But there was one still nearer at hand; and hence the inference is 
uncertain: for it could not be conclusive unless the feast of the pass- 
over were the only one during this period. Within the four months, 
about a month earlier than the passover, occurred the Purim feast; 
which was in a peculiar sense the feast of the Jews. 

There is the less reason to doubt that this is the feast which is meant, 
_ as the passover is represented to have occurred a few days after, when 
Jesus had returned from what is termed the feast of the Jews (5: 1—6: 
1,4). On this supposition, too, we should expect the rest to have hap- 
pened as John relates; viz. that our Lord would let this passover go by 
unobserved, working miracles and teaching in Galilee, inasmuch as he 
had just reached home from Jerusalem. 

On the other hand, if, as is proposed, we consider this feast as a pass- 
over, we involve ourselves in fresh difficulty. As our Lord stayed at 
home over the passover which is mentioned a few days after his return, 
there must have been, from the first supposed passover to the one which 
he omitted to keep, a whole year, and from the latter six months more 
to the feast of tabernacles ; during all which time he was not in Jeru- 
salem, and, contrary to the public institutions, omitted religious obser- 
vances for more than a year and a half, thus exposing himself to univer- 
sal censure and reproach. 

So far our position is justified and confirmed. On the other hand, it 
is objected, that John calls the feast in question merely a feast, ἑορτή, 
in which case the term must designate the passover, κατ΄ ἐξοχήν, as the 
greatest of the feasts. The following passages, it is said, are proofs of 
this, viz. Matth. 27: 15. Mark 15: 6. Luke 23: 17. John 4: 45. But 
these passages are all preceded by a definite statement that the feast 
was apassover. Hence it was not necessary, in the course of the nar- 
rative, to repeat the word passover perpetually ; but the general term feast 
was sufficient, in conformity with the usage of all languages. John 
proceeds in a similar manner in regard to the feast of tabernacles. Af- 
ter designating it by name (7: 2), heexpresses himself only in a gener- 
al way in the sequel: Jesus went up to the feast ; about the middle of 
the feast ; in the last day of the feast (7: 10, 14, 37). 

Why do we not likewise infer from this, that when the word feast is 
put by itself, we are to understand feast of tabernacles? The case is 
precisely the same; the passages before mentioned are of the same na- 
ture as these: It was the passover ; they thought to take him, but not at 
the feast ; it was usual at the feast, etc. 

As this objection, which is the principal one urged against our posi- 
tion, has thus been obviated, it may seem superfluous to add anything 


1 Scaliger, De Emendat. temporum, L. VI. p. 257. Ed. Francof. 1593. Light- 
foot, Hors Hebraic. ad ἢ. I. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 449 


further in order to elucidate the point under consideration. Yet we 
wish it to beobserved that the historian does not call the feast in ques- 
tion simply -0077), but ἑορτὴ τῶν “/ovdaiwy. The addition so alters the 
import of he expression, that it is possible to render it in two different 
ways. Ζορτὴ τῶν ‘/ovdaiwy may mean merely a feast of the Jews, 
or, by way of eminence, the Jewish feast. But, it may be said, it should 
in the latter case be ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν /ovdaiwy. Very well; but do not 
important Mss. contain this reading? Add tothese the Memphitic ver- 
sion, which exhibits the same. What, moreover, is most probable, con- 
sidering the custom of the historian? He designates all the other feasts 
by name, πάσχα τῶν Ιουδαίων (2: 13), ro πάσχα, 1 ἑορτὴ τῶν Jov- 
δαίων (6: 4), ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν /ovdaiwy, ἡ σκηνοπηγία (7: 2), ἐγκαίνια ἐν 
τοῖς “Πηροσολύμοις (10: 22); and, judging from his usual custom, this 
must be the proper name of the feast. Perhaps it was the name com- 
monly given to it by the Asiatics. No feast was so proper to be called, 
by way of eminence, the Jewish feast, as the Purim. It was the com- 
memoration of their miraculous preservation, festum ob servatos Jude@os. 
The amusements of the occasion, too, were such as to make it rather 
a feast of the people (n°995773 230 54°) than a religious solemnity. In 
every point of view it is exactly designated by the term, feast of the 
Jews. 

Besides, it was in such high estimation among the Jews, that while 
the prophets, the Hagiographa, and usages, were to be done away by the 
Messiah in his new dispensation, the law of Moses and the Purim feast 
were excepted.! Our Lord’s desire to prevent unnecessary hindrances 
to belief in his Messiahship may have been the reason why he paid re- 
gard to this feeling of the people and proved his respect for the feast by 
observing it. 

For the sake of completeness, however, we must mention, that the 
words in John 6: 4, ἣν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν “ουδαίων, have 
been sometimes regarded as an interpolation. As the learned believed 
they were to regard the feast so indefinitely mentioned, as a passover, and, 
on the other hand, knew too well that another passover could not suc- 
ceed in the course of a few days, they sought to make out the trouble- 
some words to be suspicious. ‘There were no internal grounds of sus- 
picion, except their inconsistency with an opinion which was regarded 
as the only possible one. Nor were there any external grounds. All 


1 Gemar. Hieros. Tract. Megill. Cap. I. Const. VIII. The Megillah of the dedi- 
cation will cease, but the Purim-feast will not, xd Bobi nD Mn Nd 30 ΓΙῸΣ 
"bua. Shortly after: The prophets and Hagiographa will be done away; but 
not the books of the law. Directly after is subjoined: Nor shall the Megillah 
of Esther be done away, nor the legal observances: misbmi anos mda ΤΙΝ 
Suand Deny 42>N—See a similar passage from Rabbi Ben Maiemon in Hot- 
tinger’s Thes. Phil. seu Clavis Script. L. Π| c. 1. sect. 3. The prophetic wri- 
tings and Hagiographa will be done away in the days of the Messiah, except the 
book of Esther, which is perpetual like the books of the law. 

2 The Bp. of Landaff presents to view all the learning which has been exhib- 
ited on this subject, ‘‘Notes and Additions to Michaelis’ Introd.”’ Germ. Ed. Part 
I]. p. 50 [2d Eng. Ed. Vol. III. P. 2. p: 56 seq.] ; and impartially considers the 
whole matter to be, as it really is, mere conjecture. 


= 


450 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


the Mss. and versions contradict the supposition ;! nor cantheir testimo- 
ny be altered by the decision which has recently been pronounced. 
αὶ We have then in John the following feasts, the Purim, the passover, 


τ αν the feast of tabernacles, the feast of the dedication, and t last pass- 


over; only three passovers in all, though the ancients someti es assert 
that there were more. All these three feasts, however, do not make 
the duration of his ministry to have been more than two yeais. On 
the first, he made known his Messianic dignity and mission in the Holy 
City ; during the second, as he had just returned from the feast of Pu- 
rim, he remained in Galilee ; and on the third he closed his career as a 
teacher. From the first to the third are two years ; perhaps six or sev- 
en weeks more should be added, taking into account the time from his 
baptism to the first passover. 


§ 62. 


To get a clear idea of the structure of the Gospels, the first three of 
which describes scenes in Galilee alone, and the fourth almost exclusive- 
ly occurrences in Judea, we must seek out the points of contact between 
them. I commence this inquiry with the confession that I have to cor- 
rect a former error, which merited severe censure. 

The first three contain accounts of several of our Lord’s j journeys; 
John’s contains accounts of his visits to the feasts at Jerusalem. A 
question here arises, which is of importance in regard to all the Gospels; 
and that is, which of these journeys coincide with the five feasts which 
led Jesus to the Holy City? 

John the Baptist appears as our Lord’s forerunner. Our Lord after 
his baptism withdraws into the wilderness, and, the next day after the 
inquiry made of John by certain persons sent to him from Jerusalem, re- 
turns to John (1: 29). On the following day he obtains his first two 
disciples (1: 85—41), and on the next Simon Peter (42—44). The 
day after, Philip and Nathaniel become his disciples; on which ac- 

ount he postpones his intention of going into Galilee. Three days 
after, however, he appears in Cana (2° i). He then repairs to Caper- 
naum (2; 12), takes up his abode there a few days, and afterwards goes 
to Jerusalem to keep the first passover (2: 13 seq.). 

_ Here, in the concourse at the feast, in the midst of his countrymen, 
in the temple of the metropolis, he first authoritatively announces him- 
self, revealing his dignity and proclaiming his mission (2: 13—3: 22). 
Leaving the Holy City, he takes up his abode on the Jordan, baptizing 
and teaching (3: 22—36), till a comparison between him and the Baptist, 
which might have been prejudicial to the latter, induces him to leave 
this region, whence he passes through Samaria and Sychar to Galilee 
(4: 1—5). At Sychar he remains two days (4: 43), and then enters 


1 Kuinoel, Comm. in libr. N. T. Hist. Vol. III. Evang. Joan. has very rightly 
opposed to this idea the agreement of Mss. and versions in regard to John 6: 4. 


2 Tren. L. II. Adv. Her. c. 22. Apollinar. apud Hieronym. in Dan. IX. 2. 
Epiphan. Her. LI. The various and strange opinions on the duration of our 
Lord’s ministry may be found enumerated in the Notes and Additions to Mi- 
chaelis’ Introd. I, Th. p. 51—55. [Eng. Ed. Vol. III. Part 2d, p, 62.] 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 451 


Galilee; visits Cana again, and on his way to Capernaum performs his 
second miracle in Galilee (43—54), 

How long he abode on the banks of the Jordan, we can see from the 
conversation on the way home (4:35). There are yet four months, 
and then cometh harvest. Harvest fellin the middle of April; hence 
_ Jesus was on his way home about the middle of our December, when 
the weather in Palestine is unfavorable for occupations in the open air; 
and from the passover to this time, a period of eight months, he had em- 
ployed himself in Judea in gathering his early disciples and adherents. 

Now when Jesus arrives in Galilee, and approaches Capernaum, 
John breaks off his narrative, as though nothing further occurred in 
this region. He immediately begins: “‘ After this there was a feast of 
the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (5: 1). Did nothing hap- 
pen here, then? did Jesus come here only to travel back ? 

The occurrences in Galilee are the province of the other Evangelists ; 
in whom, consequently, we must seek for them. We will cite Luke in 
behalf of all the three Evangelists, as being the last of them. Jesus 
visits Nazareth, the place where he had been | brought up ; is not honor- 
ed there (Luke 4: 16—81), and 

I. Returns to Capernaum. 
(a) Heals the demoniac in the synagogue. 
(b) Enters Simon’s house. 
(c) Enters Simon’s ship. 
(d) Heals the leper. 
IJ. Jesus comes again to Capernaum, as Mark (2: 1) states more 
distinctly. 
(a) Heals a paralytic. 
(0) Calls Matthew, or Levi. 
{c) The disciples of John fast. 
(d) The disciples of Jesus go through the corn-fields. 
(II. Jesus returns to Capernaum (Mark 3: 1. Luke 6: 6). 
(a) Heals the man with a withered hand. 
(0) Chooses the twelve. Delivers a discourse (the sermon on 
the mount) to them and the surrounding multitude. 
{c) Heals the centurion’s servant. 
(4) Goes to Nain. ee 
{e) The disciples of John inquire whether Jesus is he that should 
come ? 
{f) The woman that was a sinner anoints our Lord. 
(g) Many adhere to him; Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of 
Chuza, etc. 
(h) The mother and brethren of Jesus come to see him. 
(i) Jesus sleeps in the storm; arrives at Gadaris. 
(k) Restores to life the daughter of Jairus. 
TV. Jesus arrives in his own country (Mark 6: 1). 
(a) He gives the twelve power over demons. 
(b) Herod believes that John is risen. 
{c) The twelve return, and relate what they have done. 
(4) Jesus feeds the five thousand. 


452 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


At this point (Matth. 14: 13. Mark 6:35. Luke 9: 12), John joins in 
the narrative again, and relates with the rest the feeding of the five 
thousand, and the appearance of Jesus on the sea, which was connect- 
ed with it (John 6: 1—22). This isa point at which all the biographers 
of our Lord meet after a long separation. ‘The occurrence, according 
to John, took place soon after the feast of the Jews (Purim) (5: 1—6: 22), 
a few days before the second passover (6: 4). 

Now when did our Lord go down from Galilee 'to attend the feast of 
the Jews? We have no trace of the fact in the first and second Jour- 
neys. In the third Journey, however, his departure to this feast is indi- 
cated by Luke. Our Lord gradually moves downward from Galilee ; 
his fame goes before him in the direction of Judea (Luke 7: 17). He 
is already approaching the borders of Samaria, and is passing through 
Nain ; for the usual route from Galilee to Jerusalem by way of Samaria 
lay through Nain.! 

The Baptist hears of his approach, and is not able to understand it. 
For this several reasons may be assigned, drawn from preceding occur- 
rences. Our Lord had not long since left Judea, and was now, sosoon, 
returning. It was much too early for the passover, which he had chos- 
en the first time as the occasion on which to show himself to the people. 
Was he about to employ himself again in baptizing on the banks of the 
Jordan? But he had once relinquished this employment, that he might 
not restrict the Baptist’s operations. Could it be one, or a party, of the dis- 
ciples of Jesus, that was coming with a commission to baptize in his 
name on the banks of the Jordan? All was uncertain. If it was Je- 
sus himself, respect required him to send a deputation to receive him; 
if it was not, it was proper to send messengers for the sake of learning 
the fact. 

According to Luke, the party arrived in the vicinity of Jerusalem, 
and there the woman that was a sinner anointed our Lord; for she 
dwelt in Bethany. Luke, it is true, as we have before remarked, has 
given this event too early a position ; yet his assignment of the occur- 
rence to this period must have been based on the knowledge that Jesus 
was on his way to the Holy City, and had already come into its neigh- 
borhood. 

What he did there is to be sought for in John (5: 1—6: 1). Our Lord 
was at the feast of the Jews. 

Meanwhile, it would seem (third Journey f, g, h), Luke begins to re- 
late the return home (8: 1); the retinue of Jesus is augmented (8: 2,3). 
On the way, the mother and brethren of Jesus come to him and desire 
to see him (8: 19). This fit of solicitude to see him is without any 
motive or connexion in the Gospels. On the supposition, however, 
that Jesus was returning from the feast, nothing is more natural than 
this desire to see him, and Jearn what he had done and what had befal- 
len himthere. The Journey continues, the travellers reach home; and 
soon after we find Jesus on the sea of Tiberias (8: 22). He crosses over 
to Gadaris; restores to life the daughter of Jairus; sends forth the 
twelve ; and, after their return, feeds the five thousand (8: 26—9: 11). 

This occurrence, viz. the story of the five thonsand (fourth Journey, 


1 Jos. Ant. L. XX. c. 6. Comp. Part I. sect. 4. of this Introd. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 453 


d), is, as we have said, the point at which all the Gospels unite. John 
narrates it, because Jesus, having just returned from the feast of the 
Jews, abode in Galilee during the passover; and particularly, because a 
discourse was connected therewith, which would be unintelligible with- 
out it, and was peculiarly adapted to John’s purpose. In it our Lord 
spoke in a more striking manner than on any other occasion concern- 
ing his high origin and dignity (6: 22—71). With this discourse John 
abruptly breaks off his narration. It was not the period of the pass- 
over; Jesus spent more than six months in Galilee before the next 
feast; and yet John speaks directly of a conference in regard to going 
up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles (7: 1 seq.). 

Did nothing occur in Galilee during six months?) A greatdeal. ΔΕ 
ter the narrative concerning the five thousand, Matthew and Mark (for 
in Luke occurs the chasm mentioned in § 41) proceed as follows. Some 
Pharisees arrive from Jerusalem who censure the disciples for eating with 
unwashed hands (Matth. 15: 1—21. Mark 7: 1—14). Jesus goes into the 
region of Tyre, and heals the daughter of the woman of Canaan (Matth. 
15: 21—29. Mark 7: 24—31); he travels about near the sea of Galilee 
performing miracles, heals a deaf and dumb person (Matth. 15: 29—382. 
Mark 7: 31—37), and then feeds the four thousand (Matth. 15: 832—39. 
Mark 8:1—10). After the narrative in respect to the four thousand, 
Luke joins the other two again. Jesus inquires of his disciples, Whom 
do men say that I am (Matth. 17: 13. Mark 8: 27. Luke 9: 18)? He 
is transfigured on the mount (Matth. 17: 1. Mark 9:2. Luke 9: 18). 
The disciples cannot cure a demoniac (Matth. 17: 14. Mark 9:14. Luke 
9: 37); and dispute about precedence (Matth. 18: 1. Mark 9: 99. Luke 
9:46). All these events occurred in Galilee, partly on the northern 
border of the country, and partly on the western, towards Pheenicia. 

After these accounts, Matthew and Mark hasten to the conclusion of 
their history. Jesus goes to Jerusalem to meet his death (Matth. 19: 1. 
Mark 10:1). In John, on the contrary, he is represented as living a 
great while longer; he travels twice to Jerusalem, to the feast of tab- 
ernacles (7: 1—3), and to that of the dedication (10:22), and then, final- 
ly, to the last passover. “ie 

It is not to be denied that there are here great chasms in the first two 
histories. Where are the occurrences between the two visits to the 
temple? where the accounts of the journey to each of these feasts ? 
They are wanting ; and the history is here deficient in respect to some es- 
sential parts. It certainly was so, and it would, moreover, have continu- 
ed so, had not Luke supplied these portions of the history, which escaped 
the attention of his predecessors. But while the latter go on to describe 
the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, Luke narrates two journeys to 
the Holy City, which theydo not mention (9: 51 and 13: 22), and which 
we before designated (ᾧ 42) as the most remarkable portion of original 
historical matter furnished by this writer. 

If, now, we connect these journeys with their corresponding feasts ; 
one with the feast of tabernacles, the other with that of the dedica- 
tion, we shall obtain a simple and complete whole, without doing any vi- 
olence to the narration. 

We have thus combined all the important facts of the four historical 
books into one whole, and have given a general solution of what has 


454 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


been always considered the most difficult problem in regard to them. 
We have executed what is technically called a Harmony. 


§ 63. 


After thus entering into the fundamental plan of the Gospels, com- 
paring their materials, arrangement, mutual relation, and respective 
modes of treating the history, and analysing in detail the portions of 
the whole which are presented by each, and their historical characteris- 
tics, we can now deduce a general conclusion concerning their value 
and authority, which is the ultimate and most important object of such 
an investigation. 

We have before us, as historians, four men who have delineated the 
acts and doctrines of Jesus. Of these, two were not only contempora- 
ries but friends and disciples of our Lord, and mostly eye-witnesses of 
his actions. Of the two others, who lived in intimacy with his contem- 
poraries and confidential friends, one wrote from the dictation of 
the disciple on whom Jesus placed most reliance, and on whom he 
rested the success of his plans as on arock; the other was a man of 
learning, acquainted with the duties of an historian, and connected 
with the immediate disciples of Jesus by co-operation in his purposes, 
and, lastly, was himself in the country and on the theatre of events, 
at the period when they occurred, and followed their progress with an 
observing eye. It would certainly be extremely difficult to find an ex- 
ample of any great man or philosopher, whose actions have been pre- 
served to posterity by writers so many in number, so worthy of credit 
on account of their knowledge of the subject, and so capable in every 
point of view. 

Now these four authors wrote and published their works at different 
periods ; the second having the first, the third his two predecessors, and 
the fourth all the rest, before him. Each of them considered his duty 
and his merit to consist in surpassing the narrative of his predecessor 
in accuracy. ‘The second amended the work of his predecessor in point 
of arrangement and chronology, and was intent upon more exact par- 
ticularity and precision, about which the latter felt no anxiety. In other 
respects, he constantly adheres to the narrative and even phraseology 
of his predecessor so closely, that we readily perceive his work to be 
only a collection of critical notes upon the other. ‘The third subjected 
every thing to fresh examination, and added whatever had been left un- 
observed by the second, which would improve the narrative of the first 
in point of particularity or precision, as well as whatever was wanting in 
both ; and, by the aid of his investigations, made ἃ new revision of all 
the existing narratives respecting Jesus. Finally, the fourth saw the 
works of all the others, and gave the last finish to their accounts, and, 
likewise, by supplying what had all along been omitted, to the whole his- 
tory. 

Thus there was a general emulation in respect to accuracy, minute- 
ness, and fidelity ; we perceive no consideration for each other, no fear 
of contradiction, no forbearance, much less any mutual understanding. 
The second work, in fact, is a critique on the first, the third ontthe se- 
cond, and the fourth on all the preceding ; and if either writer had ven- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 455 


tured to say what was not true, his successor would have made ita 
point to correct it. Now where can there be found a history which 
bears such indubitable marks of pure endeavor after truth, as are con- 
tained in the impartial exertions and many successive amendments of 
emulous individuals, which are brought to view in our investigations re- 
specting these Gospels ? 

I will here subjoin a fine passage from John Chrysostom. It is from 
the Preface to his Homilies on Matthew.! 

Ti oun ; οὐχ ἤρκει εἷς εὐαγγελιστὴς πᾶντα εἰπεῖν; "Hoxee μὲν" ἀλλὰ 
κἀν τέσσαρες οἱ γράφοντες ὦσι, μήτε κατὰ τοὺς ἀὐτοῦο καιροὺς, “μήτ 
ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις, μήτε συνελϑόντες καὶ διαλεχϑέντες. ἀλλήλοις " 
εἶτα ὥσπερ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς στόματος πᾶντα φϑεέγγονται, μεγίστη τῆς ἄλη- 
ϑείας ἀπόδειξις τοῦτο γίνεται. Καὶ μὴν τοὐναντίον συνέβη, φησί" 
πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ᾿“διαφωνοῦ ντὲς ἐλέγχονται. Avro μὲν οὖν τοῦτο μέγισ-- 
τον δεῖγμα τῆς ἀληϑείας ἐστίν. Et γὰρ πάντα συνεφώνησαν μὲτ 
ἀκριβείας, καὶ μέχρι, καιροῦ, καὶ μέχρι τόπου, καὶ μέχρι ῥημά- 
των αὐτῶν, οὐδεὶς, av ἐπίστευσε τῶν ἐχϑρῶν, ὅτε μὴ συνελϑόντες 
ἀπὸ συνϑήκης τινὸς ἀνϑρωπίνης ἐγραψαν απὲρ ἐγραψαν" οὐ yao 
εἶναι τῆς ἁπλότητος τὴν τοσαύτην συμφωνίαν. Novi δὲ καὶ ἢ j δοκοῦσα 
ἐν μικροῖς, ἑἶναν διαφωνία, π πάσης ἀπαλλάττει αὐτοὺς ὑποψίας, καὶ 
λαμπρῶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ τρόπου τῶν γραψάντων ἀπολογεῖται. Et. δέ τι 
πὲρὶὲ καιρῶν ἢ τόπων διαφόρως ἀπήγγειλαν, τοῦτο οὐδὲν βλάπτουσι 
τῶν εἰρημένων τὴν ἀλήϑειαν. 

So far Chrysostom; and now we surrender these books into the 
hands of theologians, whose province it is to inquire what share of their 
composition is to be attributed to a higher than human power. 


§ 64. 


_ We must recur once more to John’s Gospel, in order, if possible, to 
discover the place of its composition and destination, and the period of 
its publication. From indications contained in the work itself, it would 
seem that our author had foreigners in his eye in composing it. He 
puts himself in their situation, and speaks of his countrymen as ofa 
people foreign to himself and to his readers. The Jews said; the Jews 
did; there was a feast of the Jews; it is the custom of the Jews. It i is 
always oi ‘/ovdaior, not asin the other Gospels, ὁ λαός, of ὄχλοι, τὸ 
πλῆϑος. Then, too, he interprets words belonging to the national 
tongue; as δὲ 9 (I. 42), GANZ, (19: 13). So common a word as 
Messiah must be explained : ‘which is Χριστός (1: 42). He does not 
even consider the word Rabbi as intelligible to his readers (1: 99). For 
the same reason, he deemed it necessary to inform them respecting the 
relation existing between the Jews and Samaritans (4: 9); of the fact 
that the Galileans also went up to the feast (4: 45); respecting the Jew- 
ish custom of purification (2: 6), and their mode of burying the dead 
(19: 40). Those for whom he Fitonded his Gospel were, therefore, at 
ion most of them, heathen; and, judging from the language of the 
book, most peohauiy Εἰ Greeks. 


1 The ante has given a translation of the passage into German, for which I 
have substituted the original Greek.—Tr. 


456 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Nothing is of more avail in elucidation of the circumstances of a wri- 
ter than his letters, if any such chance to descend to posterity. This 
advantage we actually enjoy inthe present case. Let us therefore ex- 
amine them, to see if they afford us any information concerning the his- 
tory of the writer or concerning his work. 


§ 65. 


é FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


This epistle has so visible a reference to John’s Gospel that I cannot 
but think they belong together. 

Yet, according to some recent observations by a celebrated writer, the 
two compositions were separated from each other by a considerable pe; 
riod of time, and the Epistle bears evident marks of later origin than 
the Gospel. ‘‘ The Gospel,” it is said, “‘is written with manly energy, 
and the Epistle with feebleness; the Gospel evinces the vigor of the 
prime of life, and the Epistle the weakness of old age; the former evin- 
ces the order, brevity, and precision of the most perfect possession of 
the mental powers, and the latter in its want of order, repetitions, and 
verbosity, betrays the loss of memory and judgment, and consequently 
was written in the decline of life.”! 

A close examination, however, will not confirm these positions. 
With what minuteness does John present our Lord’s discourses, as 
though he meant that not a single word of them should escape 
him! Look, for example, at a discourse extending through four entire 
chapters (14—18). There is not a trace here of the bold manner of 
writing of a historian in his prime, condensing the substance of long 
addresses into a brief synoptical form. With what anxious exactness 
does he relate how certain persons interrupted our Lord in his discour- 
ses ; how he replied, they rejoined, he said, etc. (8: 12—59. 7: 24—71). 
Look. at the conversations which he relates (3: 1—22. 4: 4—42); and 
observe the tone of his narratives of what Jesus did; e. g. the healing 
of the blind man (9: 1—41), the raising of Lazarus (11: 1—46). Does 
the account of a miracle occur in Matthew, Mark or Luke, accompanied 
with all this particularity ; with the opinions, language and conduct of 
the spectators ? 

There may perhaps be a few exceptions; but on the whole, the de- 
scription of facts or representation of doctrines in concise and nervous 
language, and the vigor of the prime of life which, it: is imagined, are 
found in this book, are not characteristics of it. Minute particulari- 
ty and familiar narrative belong to advanced years; and we can say 
with truth that the style, like that of Isocrates in his old age, though of- 
ten prolix, is agreeable. 


1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das neue Test. II. Bd. 2d Part, § 182. p. 309. 


wee 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 457 


§ 66. 


As there have been errors in higher criticism in regard to the Gospel, 
so have there been, likewise, in regard to the Epistle. But before pro- 
ceeding, let us give a faithful account of its contents. 

After an introduction, which for the present we leave unnoticed, the 
course of thought in the Epistle is as follows. God is light; and we 
must strive after this light, that we may be cleansed by the blood of 
Jesus. He who imagines himself sinless is deceived ; he who acknowl- 
edges himself a sinner may expect cleansing and reconciliation to God 
by Jesus Christ. We are sure that we know Jesus Christ, if we fulfil 
his commandments ; in this way the love of God is shown in us, and 
we unite ourselves to Christ, according to whose example and precepts 
we live. Then we no longer walk in darkness, but in the light, through 
love (—2: 13). 

I write unto you all, of every age and condition (—2: 15). Be not en- 
grossed by the love of the world; for the world passeth away. Im- 
portant things are now taking place. Enemies of Christ (the Messiah) 
have arisen in your midst ; on which account I have written to you (—2: 
21). Their heresy is, that Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God; but 
remain ye steadfast in the doctrines ye have received, that ye may con- 
tinue united to God and Christ, and may gain eternal life. I have writ- 
ten to you to preserve you from error and to lead you to Jesus (—2: 28). 

The Father hath showed us love through him, that he might receive 
us as children, and save us by the cleansing of Christ’s blood. He who 
lives in sin is of the kingdom of the wicked one; through love we be- 
long to God; through the want of it to the wicked one. After having 
passed from death to life, we, for love of whom Jesus gave his life, ought 
to love one another (—3: 19). 

We have assured confidence in God, and we shall be heard by him, 
because we are obedient to his precepts, which are love and faith in 
Christ. Believe not every doctrine; they who acknowledge not that 
Jesus is Christ come in the flesh are in error, and are of the world, 
and it is not fit that we should be like them (—4: 7). 

Let us love one another, because God loved us and gave his Son for 
us, that we being reconciled might be united to God by love. This Son 
was Jesus, the Christ, the Saviour of the world. ‘Through faith in him, 
and through love, we become united with God and with him, and gain 
a confidence without fear. The love of God to us should be our exam- 
ple in our love to our fellow-men (—5:). 

In believing that Jesus is the Christ, in loving him and keeping his 
commandments, we are exalted above the world and its errors, since the 
world, in spite of all evidence, refuses to acknowledge Jesus and for- 
feits eternal life (—5: 14). 

The consequence of our confidence in God is that he hears us ; when, 
therefore, we see a sinful brother, whose sin is not unto death, we should 
pray for him. He that is born of God sinneth not; it is only the world 
that lieth in wickedness. We have attained to exalted knowledge, and 
are united to God through Christ. 

It will be seen by ἜΝ one from this outline, that the author, after a 


4 


458 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


few introductory sentences, treats of the doctrine that Jesus is the 
Christ the Son of God, and the high importance of the law of love; 
two subjects of very different nature. We must have this fact in view 
in our judgment respecting the regularity and keeping of the work, so 
that we may not require of it a unity which it is not reasonable to ex- 
pect. It would indeed bewrong, in a didactic work written without re- 
ference to particular circumstances, to discuss two subjects so foreign to 
each other as these; but not so in regard to an Epistle, the tenor of which 
was prescribed by the requisitions made by time and place upon a man 
discharging the duties of his office as a teacher. 

According to common custom the composition should have been di- 
vided into two sections, and one subject alone should have been treated 
ineach ; but the author followed his own peculiar method, and conduct- 
ed his two subjects side by side throughout his work, so as to interweave 
them with each other, like two branches from different stocks, return- 
ing to each alternately, till he unites them together in his conclusion. 

On account of this mode of procedure, he was obliged to recur fre- 
quently to each of the two subjects, and, as one may say if he chooses, 
to repeat what he had already stated, though this was done knowingly 
and purposely. Nor are there, in fact, any mere repetitions ; but he 
turns his subjects so as to present them in various aspects, shows them 
in different relations, enforces them on different grounds. He most 
frequently inculcates upon his readers, that love and faith in Christ 
conduct to union with him and the Father, the highest object of faith 
and virtue, while the opposite leads men away from that object.! 

By losing sight of the mode in which the two subjects are discussed 
alternately throughout the whole composition, we shall become unable 
to perceive anything but a confused jumble, without plan or connexion. 
This, however, can be only through our own fault; for the author, 
though he does not follow the common mode of discussing subjects, 
really pursues one more intricate. 

If then, as is just, we consent to subtract something from the confu- 
sion and forgetfulness which has been ascribed to the Epistle, and 
something from what has been said of the power of nervous description 
and the marks of vigorous manhood visible in the Gospel, these two com- 
positions will approach a level with each other, and may both have been 
composed in an advanced, though still far from imbecile, period of life. 


§ 67. 


It is as plain as anything can be, that one absorbing topic of the Epis- 
tle is the doctrine, the proof of which was John’s especial object in com- 
posing his Gospel, viz. that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is 
no less certain thatthe Epistle exhibits numerous’ allusions to the Gos- 
pel, and repetitions of words and expressions contained in it. It was 


1 The prevalent philosophy of the period boasted that its design was to effect 
a union of man’s nature with that of higher beings. This union was to be ef- 
fected by strange means, it is true. (Introd. Part II. Chap. II. ὃ 131 below). 
John aims at this point ina different way ; and for this purpose makes use of the 
passages in the Gospel respecting being one, ἕν εἶναι, with God and Christ, 
μένειν ἐν τῷ warpi-—pivery ἐν ἐμοί (14: 20.15: 4, 7.17: 21), repeating them in this 
Epistle (2: 24—28. 3: 6, 9, 24. 4: 12—16). 


| 
: 
ὁ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 459: 


probably intended to accompany the latter, and to aid the impression 
made by it. 

This constant reference of the Epistle is evident in the doctrines it 
presents, as, likewise, in the moral precept respecting love, concerning 
which all that is said in it is, in substance, taken from the Gospel. Jesus, 
in enjoining the law of love as evidence of Christian conduct and disciple- 
ship, called it the new commandment, ἐντολὴν καινήν (13: 34, 15: 12). 
John, in making a transition to this commandment in the Epistle (2:7 
—11), makes use of the same words to introduce it, οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν 
γράφω ὑμῖν; for, he adds, it is already an old commandment, which ye 
had in the beginning of your christian course. 

This love, he further says, is shown by observing all the command- 
ments (5: 3. 3: 2, 24. 2: $4). The passages designated are but repeti- 
tions of our Saviour’s language in the Gospel in regard to this com- 
mandment of love (14: 15, 21. 15: 9, 10). 

He who does not keep these commandments belongs to the kingdom 
of the prince of darkness, who was a sinner from the beginning (3: 8 
—12). We find the same contrast in the Gospel likewise (8: 44). 

The highest proof of God’s love towards us (which love should be 
our example), consists in his having given his own Son for us (4: 9, 10). 
These are the words of Jesus as represented in the Gospel (3: 16). 

The highest evidence of the love of Jesas towards us is, that he laid 
down his life for us (3:16). “‘ Greater love,” says Jesus in the Gospel 
(15: 13), “ hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his 
friends.” 

We here see that the transition, explanation, contrast and arguments, 
constituting the substance of what is said on the subject, are derived 
from the Gospel; not to mention individual expressions and allusions, 
which it is the commentator’s province, and not ours, to point out. 


§ 68. 


In the essential parts of this Epistle, and in things of minor importance, 
we everywhere see clearly a designed reference to the Gospel. Now 
what kind of reference was intended by the writer? 

This he has plainly indicated at the outset of his Epistle: “‘ That 
which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen 
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, 
of the word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it 
and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was 
with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen 
and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with 
us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Je- 
sus Christ. And these things write we unto you... . 

The principles of moral conduct which he inculcates in the Epistle 
could neither have been seen by him nor handled with his hands; the 
doctrine, moreover, that Jesus was the Christ, he may indeed have heard 
from our Lord’s mouth, but he could never have handled it.' 


1 In regard to the supposition that the author had reference to the Docete, 
I have expressed my opinion before, when treating of the Gospels (Note 2 to ὃ 
51). 


460 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Further, he seems particularly anxious to have his readers understand 
that he writes something to them, andthat he has already written it ; and 
this at the commencement of the Epistle. 1: 4, καὶ ταῦτα γραφομὲν 
ὑμῖν. 2: 12, γράφω, ὑμῖν, τεχνία. 18, γράφω ὑμῖν, MATEYES—YOAG OF 
ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι--γράφω υμῖν, παιδία. 14, ἐγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες---ἔ- 
γραψα ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι. 2: 21, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν. 26, ταῦτα ἔγραψα. -. 
Who would aver five times, at the very outset of an Epistle, that he was 
writing, and four times that he had written, what he was only going to 
write? Had A oe happened once or twice only, towards the end of the 
Epistle, as e. g. in 5: 13, where he declares once more : ταῦτα ἔγραψα, 
it might pass as nothing extraordinary ; but as the case actually is, it is 
inexplicable, except on the supposition that these declarations do not re- 
fer to the Epistle itself, but to something else. 

He writes what he has heard, seen, etc. The things which John 
had not only heard, but seen with his eyes and handled with his hands, 
must have been things which fell under the cognizance of the senses 
mentioned ; i i. e. events and incidents, for which he presents himself as 
voucher, zat μαρτυροῦμεν. Now what things can be meant but those to 
which he testifies in his Gospel? Had we our election among several 
historical accounts, should we not naturally select that to which the 
Epistle bears perpetual reference ? 

But John does not let the matter rest even here ; he, as it were, gives 
the ttle of the book. Respecting that which was from the beginning— 
the word—we inform you : ὁ ἦν an ἀρχῆς---περὶ τοῦ hoyou—anay- 
γέλλομεν ὑμῖν. This is exactly the introduction to the Gospel: Jn the 
beginning was the word. He then adds in the Epistle, of the word of 
life—which was with the Father and was manifested unto us: περὶ τοῦ 
λόγου τῆς ζωῆς---ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, etc. So at the outset of 
the Gospel: The word was life, he was with the Father , and we saw his 
glory. The manner in which the ancients were accustomed to cite a 

work was by designating the words with which it began.! 

It was concerning this, therefore, that he declared, testified, wrote, 
and had written, ἀπαγγέλλομεν, μαρτυροῦμεν, γράφομεν, and éygawa- 
μὲν (i. e. when he composed his Epistle). He expresses himself at one 
time in the present tense, γράφω ὑμίν, as we do of a composition which 
we send with another letter—I treat of this subject in it, or write re- 
specting this. At others he expresses himself in the past tense (2: 14. 
2: 21, 26. 5: 13), ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, because it was in reality a thing already 
done. 

If now he refers to something already written, and in fact to his book 
on the Logos, it is clear what was the object of his solemn, thrice-repeat- 
ed asseveration at the beginning of the Epistle, that he declares Me 
he had seen, heard, and handled : ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, a ἑωράκαμεν, ὁ ἐϑεα 
σάμεϑα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν. ἐψηλάφησαν .--καὶ ἑωράκαμε ἐν χαὶ μαρ- 
τυροῦμεν---ὦ ἑωρακαμὲν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν, χ. τ. Δ. δ 
avers his knowledge of those facts concerning which he had satisfied 
himself by all the organs of f perception, and his fidelity and accuracy in 


1 The Jews cited thus: now js, nied nbs, Sop: So also with the 
Greeks, when they desired ie be accurate. Dionys. Halic: in Dinarcho. Ansovoe 
λόγοι ἀραῖς καὶ ψευδεπίγραφοι. Diog. Laert.in Pherec. L. 1. ο. 6. and 11. in 
Archyt. L. VIII. ¢. 5. ὃ 5. in Philolao L. VIII. c. 7. § 4, etc. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 461 


describing and communicating them ; in other words his complete his- 
toric credibility as to the contents of his Gospel.! The topic is, the ua- 
thority which he claims as a historian, to confirm which he intends to 
remind his readers of his personal connexion with the occurrences and 
of the weight of his testimony. 

The repeated expressions: J write, and Ihave written, which follow 
soon after his asseveration of his historical fidelity, now stand in their true 
light. I write unto you, little children, fathers, young men, etc. What 
is this language but a dedication of his work on the Logos to every age 
and condition, to the whole church, to which he commits and commends 
it? The expressions now cease to be idle and outof place. This 
dedication, likewise, contains evident allusions to the Gospel. ‘‘I have 
written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the 
beginning (ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς). I have written unto you, young 
men, because ye are strong and the word of God abideth in you” (καὲ 
ὁ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει). “1 have not written unto you be- 
cause ye know not the truth, but because ye know it” .. . that what 
ye have heard may abide with you (2: 21, 25). I have written unto 
you on account of those who would lead you into error (2: 26). There 
are probably few philological difficulties so simply and so amply ex- 
plained. 

In support of my position, however, I must say something respecting 
& requisition made of me by Bertholdt. He calls upon me to acknowl-., 
edge, that if the Epistle had been sent as a supplement or accompani- 
ment to the Gospel, it might reasonably be expected that in the copies 
taken of them, both would have been written together ; and that conse- 
quently the Epistle would have had its place in our canon after the Gos- 
pel of John.2 This requisition serves only to embarrass, not by any 
means to refute, my position. It must be known to this learned man 
that the division and arrangement of the books have been regulated by 
different principles at different periods; and that the early method came 
in time to be disused and forgotten. I will not repeat things so well 
known, but will instead state a few facts which are worthy of notice. 
In early times, as I shall show in the proper place, the Epistle to the 
Hebrews was, in the Alexandrian church, placed next after that to the 
Galatians, and in Upper Egypt even next after the 2d to the Corinthians. 
These peculiarities of early antiquity, however, are seldom met with, 
and only in the oldest Mss. Thus I should be completely justified in 
maintaining my position, even if I could not prove such an early arrange- 
ment of the books. But I am prepared to give the objector entire sat- 
isfaction on this point. The awkwardness of the copyist who wrote 
the Cambridge Codex has provided us with the requisite evidence of 
what was the ancient custom. On the first pageof the leaf, on the op- 
posite side of which the Acts of the Apostles begin (p. 657), he wrote, 


1 The anonymous writer in Muratori (whether Caius the Presbyter or some 
one else in the beginning of the third century), perceived that this was the case: 
“ Quid ergo mirum, si Joannes tam singula etiam in Epistolis proferat, dicens 
de semetipso: que vidimus oculis nostris et auribus, et manus nostre palpave- 
runt, hee scripsimus. Sic enim non solum visorem, sed auditorem, sed et 
scriptorem omnium memorabilium Domini . . . . se profitetur.’’ 


2 Bertholdt, Hist. krit. Hinleit. VI. Th. ὃ 702. p. 3197 seq. 


462 THE HISTORICAL BUOKS 
ΓΙ 


probably without knowing what he was about, the Latin column of the 
last verse of the 3d Epistle of John, and then subjoined : 


Epistule Johannis III 
explicit 
incipit 
Actus Apostolorum. 
It is clear from this circumstance, that the copyist had an ancient 
Ms. before him, in which John’s Epistles immediately preceded the Acts 


of the Apostles. ‘ 


§ 69. 


It would be instructive and desirable in regard to the history of the 
Gospel, could we determine to whom the Epistle, which was designed 
to accompany the former, was directed. But it contains no inscription 
to any one of the churches, and no salutation at the beginning, such as 
Paul and other writers prefixed to their letters. If, on the other hand, 
we investigate the accounts which have reached us respecting the Gos- 
pel, in order to discover from them the destination of the Epistle, we 
shall find their evidence dissimilar both in purport and in value. It is 
a question, in fact, where John wrote his Gospel. 

Some accounts say at Patmos, others at Ephesus. Theophylact, in 
the Preface to his Commentaries on John, Hyppolytus the younger (as 
he is called), in his work on the twelve apostles, together with other 
writers, declare in favor of Patmos. ΤῸ these are to be added numer- 
ous subscriptions to Mss., which, however, are but dubious authorities.' 

The subscriptions to the Syriac version and to the Arabic one of Er- 
penius, testify in favor of Ephesus. With these the testimony of an 
eminent father, Irenzus, nearly coincides; for, though he does not ex- 
pressly assign the composition of the work to this place, he does its pub- 
lication, stating it to have occurred during John’s residence at Ephe- 
sus. 

The account of the author of the Synopsis generally appended to the 
works of Athanasius, is worthy of attention. The Gospel of John, he 
says, was composed by St. John, the apostle and beloved disciple, while 
living in banishment on the isle of Patmos, and was published at Ephe- 
sus by Gaius, the friend and host of the apostles, of whom Paul writes in 
his Epistle to the Romans: Gaius, mine host, saluteth you.? 

Nearly the same is stated by Dorotheus of Tyre, a collector who gath- 
ered things together from every quarter without judgment.* From 


1 Wetstein, N. T. T. I. p. 831. Matthei, N. T. P. IV. p. 356. Birch, N. T. P. I. 
p- 676. Bidrnstahl’s Letters. Vol. VI. Part I. p. 160. 

2 Iren. Adv. Her. L. III. c. 1. Σ 

3. Τὸ δὲ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύϑη τε ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου Iwdv— 
vou τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ ἠγαπημένου, ὄντος ἐξορίστου ἐν Πάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ. Καὶ 
ἐξεδόθη ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ διὰ Taiov τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ καὶ ξενοδόχου τῶν ἀποστόλων, περὶ 
οὗ καὶ Παῦλος “Ῥωμαίοις γράφων 'φησὶ, ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς x. τ. Δ. Athan, Opp. T. 
Il. p. 155. Venet. 

4 Max. Biblioth. Patr. T. IJ. p. 421. Lugd. 1677. The Greek text of this 
eth may be foundin Rob. Stephens’ N. Test. 1550 Fol. before the Gospel 
of John. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 463 


whatever source (now lost to us) this account may have been derived, 
it merits attention for its circumstantiality, and also because its inter- 
mediate character in a manner reconciles the two former statements. 

Let us then subject it to a closer scrutiny. In investigating the facts 
on which it rests, we find in the first place, that the tradition of John’s 
residence at Ephesus is sustained by valid evidence.!_ The other fact, 
his banishment to Patmos, is avouched by himself (Rev. 1:9). But, 
it is said, the representation is made in a poetical work.” This 15 
an unfounded objection, the force of which we shall consider hereafter, 
in our intfoduction to what we have to say of the Apocalypse. The 
fact is not at all invalidated by the objection. 

These two facts imply circumstances of importance, which may be 
evolved from them by analysis. For in inquiring whether John really 
composed his work at the period of his banishment, and hence at Patmos, 
we shall readily see that while at Ephesus, occupied by the care of a nu- 
merous society, and with the superintendence of the churches which 
had sprung up inthe vicinity, he must have been less able to devote his 
time to the labors of composition, than during his inactive banishment to 
a dull rock. While this lasted, withdrawn from the ordinary circle of 
his occupations, he could discharge the duties incumbent upon him as a 
teacher only by his writings. Add to this, that in his absence, heretics 
had an open field for the accomplishment of their objects, and that he 
could counteract their influence only by a written refutation ; for a polem- 
ical or apologetical intention on his part, even as respects his Gospel, is 
asserted by the ancients, and denied by few in modern times, 

But, supposing John to have written his Gospel during his _banish- 
ment, an uninhabited island was certainly no place to publish it. It 
was necessary that it should be published in a considerable community, 
in which the work would come immediately to the knowledge of a great 
many persons, and be put in circulation by means of transcripts. Now 
the only means of effecting this object was to send the work to the con- 
tinent, to one of the cities which contained well-known Christian 
churches, and in which the author had friends and acquaintances, who 
would undertake to promote its circulation. 

In casting his eyes from Patmos upon the cities suited to his purpose, 
Ephesus must first have attracted his attention; the capital of Asia Mi- 
nor, the parent-source of Christianity to the neighboring cities (Acts 19: 
10), whose church had been founded by Paul, and watched over, fos- 
tered, and enlarged by John himself. Thus the selection was not at all 
difficult ; or rather every consideration combined to fix it upon Ephe- 
sus. 

Such are the circumstances comprised in the two facts which form 
the basis of the account left us by the author of the Synopsis. These 
circumstances derive support from their internal consistency. We can 
see, moreover, by their light, that the passage under consideration ac- 
cords so well with the circumstances of John’s later life, that it may 


1 Suskind and Flatt, Magazin fur christ]. Dogmatik und Moral. 9th St. p. 57 
seq. on the treatise entitled: “Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger 


vor dem jungsten Gericht.”’ 
2 Eichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. Vol. 11. Part II. § 157. p, 122. 


464 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


claim to be regarded as veracious tradition. I shall be able to confirm 
it still further, I hope, in regard to the circumstance of the publication 
of the Gospel by Gaius. 


§ 70. 


If, then, John despatched his work to the main land, it was necessary 
that he should send an Epistle to the church at Ephesus, for the purpose 
of commending and dedicating it to them. The other Eyangelists, 
who published their works in their own places of residence, could pre- 
sent them to their fellow-Christians personally and orally, and conse- 
quently could dispense with a written accompaniment. 

Thus an Epistle was absolutely requisite ; and, as we have fully shown, 
the first Epistle of John is inseparable from his Gospel. Its purport is 
that of an accompaniment and dedication of the Gospel. It was there- 
fore sent with the latter to Ephesus. 

The following observation, will especially confirm this supposition. 
In the Apocalypse, John distinctly designates the characteristic faults 
and virtues of each of the churches in his immediate vicinity and un- 
der his superintendence. The church at Ephesus is there character- 
ized by the following traits. There were in its midst persons who as- 
sumed ministerial and even apostolic authority, but were impostors, 
ψευδεῖς. In particular, however, he reproaches it severely with having 
lost its first love, τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκας (Rev. 2: 4). 

There were deceivers and false teachers in other churches. Decreas- 
ing love, however, was a peculiar trait, and a charge made by the Apos- 
tle against no other church. 

He judged that the want of love was the characteristic fault of the 
Ephesians. Now the Epistle is filled from beginning to end with ex- 
hortations to love, statements of its importance, and reproof of such 
as were chargeable with the want of it (1 John 2: 5, 9, 10, 11, 15. 3: 1, 
11, 12, 14—18, 23. 4: 7—10, 12, 16—21. δ: 1—3). Must we not 
then admit, comparing the Apostle’s opinion of the Ephesians with this 
fa that its peculiar purport suits no other church so well as 
theirs ? 


1 Tertullian remarks this characteristic reproach in his work, De penitentia. 
“ Evolve, que Spiritus ecclesiis dicat ; desertam dilectionem Ephesiis imputat ; 
stuprum et idolothyta Thyatirenis,” rel. 


1 Augustine and some of the Latin fathers term this Epistle ad Parthos, which 
circumstance we explain as follows. The second Epistle to John is sometimes 
called by the ancients Epistola ad virgines, and consequently in Greek πρὸς 
παρϑένους. Thus Clement in his 4dumbrations, “‘ Secunda Joannis Epistola, 
que ad virgines scripta est, simplicissima est’? (Tom. If. Opp. Clem. Alex. p. 
10, 11. Edit. Venet). There are some Greek Mss. in which the second Epistle is 
subscribed πρὸς Πάρϑους ; whence Whiston’s conjecture (in his ‘‘ Commentary 
on the three Catholick Epistles of St. John. London, 1719.” p. 6) that Πάρϑους 
was formed by abbreviation from παρϑένους, receives confirmation. This sub- 
scription to the second Epistle appears also in some Mss. as its superscription. 
There is sucha Ms. for example, in the Medicean library (Cod. Act. et Epp. 
Cath. Plut. IV. n. 32), as we are told by Lamy (De erudit. apost. P. II. c. 17. 
p. 796), ‘‘ Epistola autem 11. Johannis,” says he, “ inscribitur πρὸς Idgdovs.” 
Such a Ms., too, is described by Mill (Proleg. n. 1463), ‘“ Ibi Epistole secunde 
Joannis prefixus est titulus, Jwévvov ἐπιστολὴ 8. πρὸς Πάρϑους. (This is one of 


ee eee 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 465 


THE SECOND EPISTLE. 


This is directed to a female who is not named, but merely designated 
by the honorable appellation ἐκλεχεὴ κυρία. The two topics treated 
of in the first Epistle, form, likewise, the subject of this smaller letter. 

John alludes again to the words of our Saviour, ἐντολὴν καινὴν x. τ. A, 
as in 1 Ep. 2: 7, and enjoins love, which is to manifest itself in obser- 
vance of the commandments of God. He then warns her against false 
teachers, who deny that Jesus has come into the world as Christ or 
Messiah, and interdicts intercourse with them. In conclusion, he ex- 
presses a hope of soon seeing her, and complains of his want of materi- 
als for writing. 

The whole of this Epistle is a short compend of the first ; or it is the 
first on a smaller scale. Even the phraseology is the same. His mind 
is yet full of his previous letter ; which shows that the two were not far 
apart in point of time. The lady appears before his mind, as in the 
midst of the same circumstances and dangers as the church whose in- 
struction and admonition had just occupied his attention. Hence her 
residence was probably at Ephesus. 

As to the author, he certainly was not dwelling in either of the Ioni- 
anor Asiatic cities ; where no want of writing-materials can be supposed 
to have existed. He was still in his place of exile. 

The remaining circumstances alluded to were probably as follows. 
The sons of the ἐκλεχτὴ κυρία had been on a visit to John (2 Ep. 4). 
The sister of this matron was desirous of showing similar respect and 
sympathy for the apostle’s lot, and sent her sons, likewise, to visit him. 
While the latter were with the apostle, he had opportunity to despatch 
the two Epistles and the Gospel to the continent (v. 13). 


the Huntingdon Mss., in Wetstein Acts n. 30). Now as this inscription to a bar- 
barous people was not very well suited to an Epistle directed to a Greek lady, 
the inscription to the second Epistle was turned into a subscription to the first, 
whence it happens that the Latin fathers call it epistola ad Parthos. From an 
incorrect division of the words, probably, arose the reading προ-- οπαρϑους ; and 
then by correction, πρὸς σπάρϑους. The superscription ad Spartos, is prefixed 
to the first Epistle of John in a Latin Bible from the library at Geneva, which 
one of the bishops of that city, in the 11th century, presented to the church of St. 
Peter. . 

1 Critics are not agreed whether this female was named Eclecta, or Kvoda, or 
whether we should translate electa domina, as Jerome does. (Catal. Script. Eccl. 
-y. Johannes). She cannot have been named Eclecta ; for in that case she must 
have had the same name as her sister (2 Ep. v.15). In regard to Bengel’s ob- 
servation in his Gnomon: “ Neque dubitare quisquam potest, nisi qui stilum 
veterem ignorat, aut non recordatur appellativam κυρία, domina, extra relatio- 
nem ad servos, eo tempore vix regin@ sine invidia dari poterat,”’ we observe that 
Epictetus declares the contrary: αὐ γυναῖκες εὐϑιὺς dard τεσσάρων καὶ δέκα ἐτῶν 
ὑπο τῶν ἀνδρῶν κυρίαι καλοῦνται (Enchir. ο. 62).! 


59 


466 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


§ 72. 


THE THIRD EPISTLE. 


This is written to Gaius. ‘The author, as in the preceding Epistle,. 
consoles himself with the hope of soon coming himself (v. 14). He 
still suffers the same want of writing-materials (v. 13). Consequently 
he was still in the same wretched abode ; and, to judge from the expres- 
sion of his hopes, the time was nearly the same as when the preceding 
letter was written. 

The residence of Gaius is determined by the following circumstan- 
ces. The most general is, what is said of the danger of “his being led 
away from the faith (ν. 6. 4). A more definite circumstance is, that 
John had sometimes despatched messengers thither and received 2c- 
counts from thence (v. 5—8) ; and likewise that he regards his testimo- 
ny as so well known and fully acknowledged in the hata that he 
could appeal to their judgment respecting its correctness (v. 12), οἴδατε 
ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληϑής ἐστι; and, finally, that he had several inti- 
mate friends in its midst (v. 14). All this shows the place to have been 
a considerable one, where the apostle had resided for a long time, and, as 
the time was the latter period of his life, we are referred particularly 
to Ephesus. 

He had not long before written to the church of which Gaius was a 
member, ἔγραψα τῇ ἐχκλησίᾳ (v. 9). Thismust allude to bis Ist Epis- 
tle, for we have no knowledge of another to any church; and hence 
Ephesus was certainly the destination of the third Epistle and the resi- 
dence of Gaius. 

The rest is now easily explained. John had sent thither his first 
Epistle, i. e. the accompaniment of the Gospel, together with the Gospel 
itself/ But the enemies of John, with Diotrephes at their head, rejected 
the message and messengers of John, and even forbade others to receive 
them (v. 9,10). Gaius was not influenced by this circumstance, but 
peta sti hospitality and maintained his fidelity to the apostle 

ν. 6,7 

Who, now, was better fitted to make known John’s Gospel among his 
fellow- Christians, and to publish it at Ephesus, if it were to be thus pub- 
lished, than Gaius? πὶ is to him that the author of the Synopsis has as- 
cribed this honor: καὶ ἐξεδόϑη év Λᾳέσῳ διὰ Γαίου. With this state- 
ment all parts of the Epistle, not only are perfectly consistent (it is not so 
with unfounded accounts, for in their case the contrary rather is evident), 
but so accord that they mutually explain and confirm each other. And 
supposing that the writer of the Synopsis, or his authority, did add to the 
tradition a conjecture that it was the Gaius of whom Paul speaks (Rom. 
16: 23), the general credit of the account is not shaken. In fact it is 
‘not impossible that Gaius changed his residence, and at a later period 
abode in Ephesus. 


αν  ———-- ΝΣ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 467 


§ 73. 


We are now for the first time, prepared to answer the question, When 
was the Gospel of John published ? 

Destruction had already done its work in the environs of Jerusalem, 
when he was employed in its composition. He often speaks of places 
and things in the environs as if they were no longer in existence. Thus 
we see from his narrative that the gardens on the Mount of Olives, 
which our Lord was accustomed to visit, were no more. There was 
there a garden, says he, ἦν χήπος (18° 1) ; and there was a garden in the 
place where Jesus was crucified (19: 41). Bethany was no longer in 
existence, as he says: ‘‘ Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fif- 
teen furlongs off” (11: 18). 

He expresses himself only once as though the object of which he was 
speaking was still in existence, viz. respecting the pool of Bethesda ; 
ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς “Περοσολύμοις (v. 2), there 15 at Jerusalem a pool. But 
this existed after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jong attracted men’s 
attention, from the peculiar swelling of its springs, and the colour of its 
water, caused by the mineral substances it contained.! Hence the pool 
was open after the destruction of the city. It is true that he says of 
the structure over the pool, πέντε στοὺς éyovoa; but we know that 
ἔχουσα may have the signification of the imperfect tense: which had 
five porches. 

But these circumstances do not determine the time with precision. 
If, however, the Epistles really have the close connexion with the Gos- 
pel which we have supposed, we may approach very near a definite de- 
termination of the time. In ithe Epistles the apostle expresses hopes of 
return, and looks forward with confidence to the termination of his ex- 
ile, and to the satisfaction of conversing with his friends face to face. 
In the third Epistle he even promises himself that this shall speedily be 
the case, ἐλπίζω εὐϑέως ἰδεῖν σε (3 Ep. 14. comp. 2: 12). 

The terrible period of Domitian’s reign was therefore at an end, and 
the milder rule of Cocceius Nerva had commenced, who set at lib- 
erty all who had been condemned on account of their religion, gave 
permission to those who had been exiled to return to their homes and 
friends, and forbade accusations of impiety and a Jewish mode of life.” 
This happened at the commencement of his reign, and secured the 
speedy return of the apostle. Now as these prospects and expectations 
are clearly expressed in his Epistles, which were all written about the 
time of the publication of his Gospel, this publication must have taken 
place in the first year of Nerva, i. 6. in the 65th year after Jesus’ death ; 
and, supposing John to have been 19 years old at the time of the latter 


1 Euseb. Onomast. de locis sacr. v. Βηξζάϑι. Bytdéda, κολυμβηήϑρα ἐν “]ερου-- 
σαλὴμι, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ προβατιπὴ, τὸ παλαιὸν πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα. Καὶ viv δείκνυ-- 
ται ἐν ταῖς αὐτόϑι λίμναις διδύμοις, ὧν ἑκάτερα μὲν ἐκ τῶν κατ᾽ ἔτος ιἱετῶν πλε-- 
ροῦται, ϑάτερα δὲ παραδόξως πεφοινιγμένον δείχνυσι τὸ ὕδωρ, x. τ. Ae 

2 Dio. Cass. Epit. Xiphilin. in Nerv. p. 241. Ed. Henr. Stephan. 8. Ed. We- 
chel. p. 769. Καὶ ὁ Negovas τούς τε κρινομένους éx ἀσεβείᾳ ἀφῆκε. καὶ τοὺς 
φεύγοντας κατήγαγε. . » « τοῖς δὲ δὴ ἄλλοις οὔτ᾽ ἀσεβείας, οὐτ᾽ ᾿Ιουδαϊκοῦ βίου 
καταιτιᾶσϑαί τινας συνεχώρησε. . 


468 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


occurrence, in the 84th year of his life, about 31 years after the pub- 
lication of Matthew. 

But how was John able, after such a number of years, to recall with 
accuracy so many discourses and occurrences, with their numerous pe- 
culiarities and minutia, as detailed in his history ? There is probably 
no one who will not be led to ask himself this question. But who will 
presume to say that John did not note down anything before writing his 
history ? that after the consummation of these events, when he had lJearn- 
ed their importance from the surprising consequences which ensued, he 
did not think fit to note down anything to aid his memory in after times ? 
Who will endeavor to persuade us, that when he perceived his recollec- 
tion of the words and actions of his Master to be gradually growing 
more and more feeble in the lapse of time, he took no precaution to se- 
cure them by permanent means? . 

If it be asked still further, when, at what period of his life, he began 
to note down anything in writing, it must be replied that the interroga- 
tor pushes his curiosity further than it can be satisfied; not merely 
in regard to John, but most ancient historians, who have written of the 
events of their time. Who can tell when Xenophon commenced his 
earliest notes towards the composition of his Hellenic History, or Taci- 
tus towards his Libri Historiarum? Yet the former executed his his- 
tory 49 years, and the latter at least 30, after the commencement of the 
series of occurrences which he narrates. The assumption which we 
make in regard to them, viz. that they did what was necessary to retain 
possession of the facts which became known to them from their own 
observation or through eye-witnesses, we must acknowledge to be allow- 
able in this case. 


SUPPLEMENT 


RESPECTING SOME DISPUTED PORTIONS OF THE GOSPELS. 


§ 74. 
Of the first two chapters of Matthew. 


The. authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew was attacked 
almost at the same time in England and Germany, and has found sup- 
porters in both nations. With an aim in view totally different from that 
of his predecessors, a man of established reputation for learning, has 
pronounced the narratives of Matthew and Luke to be irreconcilable 
with each other, as respects those portions which relate to the birth and 
early life of Jesus.! We cannot, in an introduction, avoid noticing a 
question which involves so considerable a portion of the Evangelical 
history. 

The principal objections which have been advanced against these two 
chapters, may be comprised under the following heads. 

I. The genealogy in Luke plainly contradicts that in Matthew. 

II. The annunciation related in Luke (1: 26—88) does not agree 
with Matthew’s account (1: 18—22). 

III. The succession and connexion of facts in the history of Jesus’ 
youth in Luke, leave no space for the visit of the Magi and the flight to 
Egypt; but make these events chronologically impossible. 

IV. The story of the Magi in Matthew bears evident marks of fic- 
tion. ‘The motion of a star before a party of men, to point out to them 
their way, and its standing still above a house, are phenomena not com- 
patible with any astronomical system. 

V. The murder of the children in Bethlehem confutes itself by its in- 
ternal improbability ; and other things in which Matthew varies from 
Luke want verisimilitude. 

VI. Lastly, these two chapters are nowhere cited in the oldest fath- 
ers; and in some Mss. Matthew’s genealogy is wanting. 

As to the first point, it cannot be denied that the contrariety of the 
genealogies has not yet been explained. The evasion that one traces 
Joseph’s descent, and the other (Luke 3: 23), Mary’s, does violence to 
the phraseology employed. Let us, however, examine the matter more 
closely. > 


1 “ Uber die Schriften des Lukas, ein kritischer Versuch,” by Dr. Fr. Schleier- 
macher. I. Th. Berlin 1817. p. 42-50. 


ν᾿ 
rs 


470 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


In both genealogies, we find the names Salathiel and Zerubabel ; 
in each, Salathiel is the father and Zerubabel the son, and both are of the 
royal house of David. This coincidence of personal circumstances 
seems to denote that the persons in the two genealogies are identical. 
The time, too, at which they lived, confirms this supposition. 

The names of Salathiel and Zerubabel occur in Matthew during and 
directly after the exile. So too in Luke, as appears from what follows. 
There were five hundred and a few more years from David’s reign to 
the first return of the Jewish tribes from exile; and from that event till 
the time of Christ there were again five hundred and a few more years ; 
consequently these two periods of time are equal. Luke reckons back 
to Salathiel 21 generations, and from Salathiel to David the same 
number; as Matthew reckons two periods of 14 generations each, 
corresponding with the two periods above-mentioned. After the first 
21 generations in Luke, five centuries afier David’s time, i. e. at a peri- 
od during and after the exile, occur the names of Salathiel and Zeruba- 
bel. Thus not only their personal circumstances, but the time when 
they both lived, leads us to the conclusion that the same persons are 
intended in both genealogies. 

The question now arises: Can Salathiel be the son of Jecionias, as 
represented in Matthew, and at the same time the son of Neri and Mel- 
chi, as represented in Luke? 

Jechonias was not so fortunate as to have any children. Jechonias, 
or Jehoiachin (two names of the same person as is well known; see 
2 Kings 24: 6 seq. 1 Chron. 3: 16), was carried prisoner to Babylon. At 
that time he had no children ; for the 2d book of Kings (24: 15), which 
enumerates his family, mentions only his mother, wives, and officers. 

During his exile his royal rank made his fate more severe than that 
of common Jews. The latter enjoyed at least a degree of liberty, as 
planters and laborers ; but the king was guarded in prison. He contin- 
ued in prison till Evilmerodach, in the 37th year of his captivity, libe- 
rated him, changed his prison-garments, and placed him at his own ta- 
ble (2 Kings 25: 27). When he went to Babylon he was 18 years of 
age, and consequently 55 at his release ; an age when the expectation of 
children must have ceased with one so depressed and debilitated by ad- 
versity. Moreover Jeremiah uttered a prophecy (22: 30), by which he 
was cut off from the privilege of offspring. 

Hence, if he had children, they must have been his nominal children, 
according to the law which required a man to raise up seed unto his 
brother. In this way Salathiel may have been a son of Jechonias, as 
he is said to have been in Matthew, and still a son of Melchi and Neri, 
as in Luke. 

But it will be objected, the first book of Chronicles (3: 17, 18), enu- 
merates several sons of his; which renders improbable the supposition 
we have made; for only the first son was begotten for one who died 
childless, and he alone named after him, the others belonging to their 
natural father. 

Let us then examine the passage in the Chronicles. It reads: ‘The 
sons of Jechoniah, Assir ; Shealtiel hisson, Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, 
and Shenazar,” etc. But Assir is not here a proper name; "ON, or 
[ON , signifies one bound, one kept in prison. Now it was the distin- 


nt il 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 471 


guishing characteristic of the unfortunate king’s fate, that he spent the 
greater part of his life in captivity. ‘The expression 523 , too, shows 
that only one son is spoken of; and the first clause of the passage 
should be translated : the sons of Jechoniah, the imprisoned, are Shealtiel 
his son, etc. 

The second clause of the passage : Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and 
Shenazar, etc. \SN7W)_ 7'3]) 0473279, is wrongly translated. Among 
the ancestors of Salathiel, in Luke, Melchi stands as grandfather, and 
Neri as father. The first name may be made out in this passage, by 
dividing the words thus: 7577729793572 ; and then the passage signi- 
fies: And Melchi raised up to him (737, ἔβαλε, for ἐπέβαλεν, or év- 
ἐποίησεν, αὐτῷ) Pedaiah, Shenazar etc. Thus Luke’s account is 
confirmed ; for it is of no consequence, in a Jewish genealogy, that the 
grandfather is put instead of the father, Neri, inasmuch as one link is 
frequently omitted, as several are in Matthew. Besides, Neri may have 
been prematurely called away by death from the duties of a father, in 
which case all the children fell to Melchi’s family. 

Thusthe book of Chronicles plainly states the circumstance, that, for 
the preservation of the royal line and the assurance of posterity, the 
sons that were subsequently born of one of the king’s wives, were reck- 
oned to the king’s race: 

Hence Salathiel occurs with propriety in both genealogical tables. 
The two lines are those of Nathan and Solomon. We will state the 
reason why Salathiel might be reckoned in both. We find no mention 
in the Old Testament of any brothers of Jechoniah who lived to man’s 
estate; the sons of Zedekiah, his father’s brother, were murdered be- 
fore the eyes of their parent, and he himself deprived of sight ; Shal- 
lum, another of his father’s brothers, had long been carried away cap- 
tive to Evypt, and one branch after another of the house of Solomon was 
destroyed. In default of near kinsmen, more distant relations supplied 
their place.! The nearest royal line to Solomon’s was that of Nathan. 
Solomon and Nathan were even brothers on the mother’s side; and 
therefore in the enumeration of David’s children they are always con- 
nected together (2 Sam. 5: 14. 1 Chron. 3:5). Hence Salathiel ap- 
pears as son both in the table of Nathan’s line in Luke, and that of 
Solomon’s in Matthew. 

Let us now inquire respecting Zerubabel, Salathiel’s son. In 1 
Chron. 3: 17, 18, 19, Shealtiel, the son of Jechoniah, has no son; in 
Matthew he has one, viz. Zerubabel. But the meansof solving the dif- 
ficulty present themselves in the passage itself. Shealtiel was child- 
less ; Pedaiah was his eldest brother, whose duty it was to raise up seed 
to Shealtiel ; among Pedaiah’s sons we find Zerubabel, who, if Pedai- 
ah fulfilled the law, may have been reckoned as the son of Shealtiel. 


Further, we perceive that in both tables Zerubabel is represented as 
having sons. ' 


Josia. | Melchi. 
Jechonia. Neri. 
Shealtiel 
Zerubabel 
Abiud. Resa. 


1 Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, Vol. 11. ὃ 98. 


472 THE HISTORICAL BUOKS 


Now, if what has been said of Shealtiel is well-founded, we can ex- 
plain this circumstance in regard to Zerubabel. He might properly 
stand as father in both lines, that of Solomon and that of Nathan. He 
belonged to the first as Shealtiel’s son ; and he no doubt became a fa- 
ther in the other according to the requirement of the Mosaic law, as he 
himself was begotten.’ 

From this point the two lines run on uninterruptedly about 500 years, 
to Joseph, the father of our Lord. Now is it anything strange or in- 
credible, that after so long a period a case should again occur (for cases 
of this kind were by no means rare, see Matth. 22: 25 seq.), in which one 
family, was bound by the requisition of the law to preserve the failing 
stock of the other? Examine our ancient genealogical registers, and see 
how few families have lasted in a right line for so long a_period of time. 

Itis a fact, that we do not find mentioned in the New Testament, 
or in history, any brothers of Joseph, or any kinsmen of Jesus on the 
father’s side. He stands alone, as must have been the case were he a 
descendant of an extinguished stock, begotten in accordance with the 
requisition of the law. 

Thus only three cases of this nature are requisite in a period ofa 
thousand years to render the two tables perfectly consistent according 
to Jewish usage. And does not the chief difficulty fall in the most 
calamitous days of the Jewish state, the most unfortunate times of the 
house of Solomon, when we may suppose every means would be taken 
for the preservation of the race? Do not historic facts establish a part 
of our theory, and Jewish law and usage favor the whole? 

Thus, the genealogy of Luke does not contradict that of Matthew. 
Luke presents us a document, which though inferior in value to Mat- 
thew’s, was yet from its novelty, and because it deduced the same result 
in another way, worthy of record. 

But there is still a difficulty in reconciling these tables, which must 
beremoved. The name “2βεούδ, which we find in Matthew, does not 
appear in the enumeration of Zerubabel’s sons in 1 Chron.3: 19. The 
explanation ofthis, as I imagine, is contained in the name itself. Names 
beginning with Adz, and in Arabic with Abu, are not always proper 
names. In Arabic they are generally names assumed from affection 
forason. Thus Mohammed called himself, from Kasem his son, Abu- 
kasem, the father of Kasem (Abulfeda, Annal. Muslem. 'T. I. p. 192, 
193). Analogous examples occur among the Jews. One of David’s 


1 My friend and former pupil, Prof. Herbst, of Tubingen, has kindly commu- 
nicated to me an attempt to reconcile the two accounts in a simpler way. He 
thinks that the division i74—>>51 , and particularly the interpretation of m7" , 
as meaning ἐμβάλλειν, ἐμποίειν, are forced. He considers Assir, θα, to bea 
proper name, which, as cannot be denied, frequently occurs in genealogical ta- 
bles. On this supposition, he is of opinion that Assir was raised up by a kinsman 
ot the line of Nathan to Jechoniah who was childless, and that Assir’s sons were 
Salathiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, etc. The use of the plural number, \"Os 47559 "23 
(1 Chron. 3: 16), is no objection. It is used with reference to children of the sec- 
ond and third generation, asin 1 Chron. 6: 7. 122 Rap 423 512 ὩΣ OnE 3 
jon θα. The annexed ἢ in 423 refers back, as in the example adduced, to Assit 
jon ΝΠ sco. The rest then proceeds as I have supposed. That Assir 
is not mentioned in Matthew’s table, isa circumstance common to him with 
many others, who are omitted on account of the division into classes of fourteen 
generations each. I give the preference to this simple mode of reconciliation. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 473 


valiant men was named Abiel, God my Father (1 Chron. 11: 32), 
and is likewise called Abialbon, Albon’s father (2 Sam. 23: 31). The 
father-in-law of Abia is called Uriel (2 Chron. 13:2), and likewise 
Abishalom, Shalom’s father (1 Kings 15:2). The case may be the 
same as to the word Abiud ; it is a name expressive of a father’s affec- 
tion. The proper name may have been Meshullam, or Hanania, ete. 

II. The objection of Schleiermacher: ‘ If Luke’s account of the an- 
nunciation be correct, the doubts of Joseph and their removal as stated 
in Matthew are not supposable” etc.,! is rather surprising than impor- 
tant. The doubts of Joseph were not removed by the annunciation. If 
Mary informed him of her pregnancy by relating this occurrence, 
through which she herself first obtained knowledge of it, her statement 
needed unusual confirmation, just in proportion as the circumstances 
deviated from the common course of nature. An extraordinary mode of 
convincing Joseph was therefore requisite; and hence the account in 
Matth. 1: 20—22, is not only not inconsistent with Luke’s, but rather 
assists and completes it. Joseph’s mind must have been put at rest, and 
Mary must have been secure as respected the measures he might have 
taken, before she could undertake the journey to Elizabeth for the pur- 
pose of seeing the sign which the angel had given her in confirmation. 
It is not to be supposed that the journey was made without Joseph’s con- 
currence ; and hence the indifference towards her husband, which, it is 
said, an absence of three months evinced, is done away. In fact, the 
absence was probably wished by Joseph; for, after taking her to wife, 
he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son (Matth. 1: 
24, 26). 

III. The discrepancies between the two Evangelists are said to ex- 
tend still further into the history of Jesus’ youth. Luke says (2: 22 ᾿ 
and 39), that when the days of the purification of the mother of Jesus 
were over, his parents went to Jerusalem, to present the child to the 
Lord ; and that, after doing everything in conformity with the law of the 
Lord, they returned into Galilee to their own city, Nazareth. . 

Matthew gives us a totally different account. The parents and the 
child receive a visit at Bethlehem from some Magi, which occasions their 
flight into Egypt, and it is not till their return that they go to Naza- 
reth. 

Now if the visit of the wise men occurred after the presentation of 
Jesus in the temple, the child would not then have been found by them 
in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth of Galilee, whither he was carried, ac- 
cording to Luke, immediately after this observance of the law. 

On the other hand, if the Magi arrived before the presentation, the 
latter could never have occurred, for the flight to Egypt directly follow- 
ed their visit. 

The supposition that the parents returned from Egypt with Jesus to 
Bethlehem, again to present him to the Lord, is contradicted by Luke, 
who places the presentation after the forty days of Mary’s purification ; 
as also by Matthew, who asserts that on their return to Egypt they 
were afraid to go to J:idea (2: 22). 


1 Ueber die Schriften des Lukas. I. Th. p. 42. 
60 


474: THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


This difficulty, which has been much insisted on by Stroth,! is cer- 
tainly very plausible. 

It is an inquiry of importance, whether Luke’s language is to be taken 
in its strictest signification; whether it must be understood as meaning 
that immediately after the ceremony of the presentation the parents of 
Jesus went to Nazareth. I do not think we are to take Luke’s language 
in so strict a sense. Throughout the commencement of his history, he 
is in the habit of separating each particular narrative from the rest by 
some concluding formula, appending a general clause, or, as is often 
the case, a superfluous remark, which would be understood of itself. 
Such a superfluous conclusion occurs in Luke 1: 98--Α αἱ ἀπῆλϑεν an 
αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος ; andin 2: 20—Kai ὑπέστρεψαν οἱ ποιμένες, etc. So 
too the general remark, 1: 80--- 70 δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο 
πνεύματι; and 2: δ2--- Α αἱ ᾿Ιησοῦς προέκοπτε σοφίᾳ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ 
χάριτι. Such a conclusion, too, is the clause in question ; and it must 
be considered rather in this light, than as a definite statement of time. 
The words, therefore, in 2: 29—Kail ὡς ἐτέλεσαν ἅπαντα... ὑπέ- 
teswoy ... τὸ δὲ παιδίον, denote only, in general, that after this 
observance of the law Jesus became an inhabitant of Nazareth, without 
meaning that no time elapsed between the fulfilment of the law and the 
residence at Nazareth, or that there were not intervening occurrences 
of importance. 

IV. But the story concerning these Magi, it is said, is replete with ab- 
surdities. What are we to think of such astronomical phenomena as 
the gradual progress of a star before the travellers, its resting eventually 
above a particular house, etc. ? 

_ Let us examine the matter. Certain Magi came from the east, ἐξ 
ἀνατολῆς. The countries which could be called eastern in Palestine, 
were Arabia Deserta, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. Babylonia was the 
chief seat of the science of astronomy ; as, likewise, of astrology, or 
the art of inquiring and predicting the fate of men from the stars. It 
was in this country, then, that the significant star was observed. 

The Magi were originally learned Persians, who were transferred to 
Babylon when it became the capital of the Persian kings. Subsequent- 
ly, however, the term Magian was applied to astrologers and soothsayers 
generally. ‘The star announced to them the birth of a great king of 
Soper heeaat nature, and they sought to pay him homage and adore 
him. 

The star which they believed to denote this event went before them, as 
our version reads. But doesnot προάγξεν mean, likewise, to lead any one, 
to be his guide? And is it not customary in the East to journey by the 
stars at night, on account of the heat of the day 15 


1 Repertorium fir bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur. [Xth Band. 

2 “Tdeo Magi qui forte Athenis erant, immolaverunt defuncto (Platoni), am- 
plioris fuisse sortis quam humane rati.”” Senec. Ep. 58. 

3 Breitenbach (6 Wallfahrt zum heil. Land’), on the route to Mt. Sinai and 
the convent of St. Catherine, followed a star, which rose constantly after mid- 
night, as he doubted not, on account of the merits of St. Catherine (1488, 20th 
Sept.). John Wehrli Zimber followed this star (‘Wallfah:t zum heil. Grab.’ 1483, 
22d Sept.); as, likewise, John Tucher von Nurnberg (‘Verzeichniss der Reiss zum 
heil. Grab und nach Sinai’ 4th Oct. 1480). The star of St. Catherine stands 
over Mt. Sinai. 


Ὁ i i ple) le a 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 475 


The star, then, was their guide till it stood over where the young 
child was. Inconceivable; that a star should stand directly over a 
house. True; but it is only said that ἠέ stood over where the young child 
was, ἐπάνω οὗ ἣν τὸ παιδίον. This may mean over the region, as well 
as over the house. 

This is the meaning of the account, moreover, if we interpret it ac- 
cording to the ideas of the time, and the astrological system of these 
wise men. Every man, said they, is born under a certain star, called 
his star: εἴδομεν τὸν ἀστέρα αὐτοῦ. 

The signs of the zodiac, from east to west, and twenty-four other 
stars towards the north and south, occasion a peculiar temperature of the 
atmosphere. By the removal or approach of the planets to these stars, 
the atmosphere experiences important changes; and its condition at the 
moment when a child is conceived, animated, or born, is decisive of its 
destiny. It determines his talents, virtues and greatness, his actions 
and success. 

As the fate of individuals is determined by their particular star, so 
whole nations are under the direction and superintendence of the con- 
stellation beneath which their country is situated ; and the changes oc- 
casioned in it by the planets determine their prosperity or adversity.(') 
Thus the Jewish king was seen in the constellation of his country as its 
benefactor. 

Now if it were only known to what people a certain constellation be- 
longed, in the vicinity of which the royal star appeared, they could by 
its means, according to their system, discover the nation and king which 
were unknown and were represented by the star. The star was their 
natural conductor. 

It is clear from the narrative, that it was so indefinite a guide as not to 
point out any particular house or place, but only the country in general. 
Else why was it necessary for them to inquire after reaching the coun- 
try: Where is he that is born king of the Jews (2: 2)? 

When they had discovered where the child was, the star which had 
been in their view on their journey stood above where the child lay ; i. 8. 
it was above the region of the earth to which this good fortune fell, and 
not above any particular house. Yet the sight of the star must have 


1 Cicero has explained their system in his treatise De Divinat., L.I1. c. 42. p. 
277. Bipont. Manilius, however, has discussed the astrological theory of the 
Chaldeans at most length, and we will here quote a passage from him in sup- 
port of what we have stated. 


‘“« Hos erit in fines orbis, pontusque notandus, 
Quem Deus in partis, et singula dividit astra, 
Ac sua cuique dedit tutele regna per orbem 
Et proprias gentis, atque urbis addidit altas, 
In quibus efferrent preestantis sidera vires. 

Sic divisa manet tellus per secula cuncta ; 
E quibus in proprias partis sunt jura trahenda. 
Namque eadem que sunt signis commercia servant, 
Vtque illa inter se coeunt, odioque repugnant, 
Nunc adversa polo, nunc et conjuncta trigono, 
Queque alia in varios affectus causa gubernat, 
Sic erit et sedes fugienda, petenda cuique, 
Sic speranda fides; sic et metuenda pericla,’’ etc. 

[Astronom. L. IV. ν, 697 seq. 


476 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


filled them with all the joy represented by Matthew, inasmuch as it 
was a token of the correctness of their discovery, and a confirmation of 
the 10). of the accounts they had received, as well as of their system 
(2: 10). \ 

V. The murder of the children at Bethlehem, it is objected, even 
supposing the most savage barbarity on the part of Herod, is inexplica- 
ble. For, how much more cheaply he might have obtained his end? 
How easy it must have been for him to discover, in so small a place as” 
Bethlehem, the spot to which the strangers carried their costly gifts, 
etc.! There is force in these remarks, if we take into account nothing 
but his cruelty. This, however, was mostly the effect of his distrustful 
temper, which increased with his years and reached its highest pitch in 
the latter period of his life.2 Now he had just been imposed upon in 
regard to the child by the Magi, and wounded in a sensitive part, so 
that to represent him as depending any further on inquiries, would be 
an improbable statement. He acted, therefore, in conformity with his 
disposition ; he was cruel from distrust. 

Matthew, it is said further, differs from Luke in regard to Joseph’s 
dwelling place. He does not seem to know that Galilee was his home, 
and that he prolonged his stay in Judea only from accident, because 
Mary was delivered there. He rather supposes Joseph to have been an 
inhabitant of Judea; and thus, when Joseph leaves Egypt to go home, 
he travels towards Judea, and does not turn towards Galilee till he is 
warned of God in a dream. But is Matthew so totally wrong? We 
should reverse the matter. ‘It would rather seem that Joseph resided 
casually in Galilee, inasmuch as, on account of his relationship and de- 
scent, he was cited to Judea, εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν, that his name might 
appear inthe register of the place.2 This statement of Luke clearly con- 
firms Matthew’s representation. A good reason may be assigned, why 
Joseph feared Archelaus. This prince had done at the outset of his 
government what Herod had never done, and what had never yet hap- 
pened ; he had caused several thousand people to be massacred in the 
temple on the feast of the passover, because of some seditious proceed- 
ings (Jos. Ant. L. XVII. c. 9. n.3. De Bell. Jud. L. UW. c. 1. n. 3). The 
cruel act must have seemed the more horrible to Joseph, when he 
reached the land of Israel, as it had just happened, and still filled all 
minds with consternation. 

V. It is objected, lastly, that some Mss. do not contain this genealogy, 
and the most ancient fathers appear to know nothing about these chap- 
ters of Matthew. 

Velthusen, however, has denied the fact as respects the Irrian Ms., 
which has been appealed to ;* and in the Harleian Ms. in uncial char- 


1 Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften des Lukas. I. Th. p. 44, 45. 


2 Jos. Ant. L. XVI. c.,7.n.3. "Exanodto δὲ ταῖς υἱποψίαις, καὶ χείρων ἀεὶ 
γινόμενος, ἅπασιν κατὰ πάντων ἐπίστευεν. Ant. L. XVI. ς. 8. n. 9. n.5. 

3 A friend objects thatif Bethlehem was his home, it is unaccountable that he 
had no habitation there, and was obliged to place the infant ina,manger. The 
fact that he had no house there, is no objection to his being a native Bethlehem- 
ite, but may have been a reason why he tried his fortune in another part of 
the country. Ἥ 

4“ The authenticity of the first and second chapters of Matthew's Gospel vin- 
dicated.” Lond. 1771. p. 5. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 477 


acters, assigned by Griesbach to the 6th or 7th century, the addition to 
which so much importance has been attached (viz. the words: Geneal- 
ogia hucusque. Incipit Evangelium secundum Mattheum ), is not by the 
first but a later hand, and only in the margin.! 

The Ebnerian Ms. at Niirnberg is, therefore, the only one on which 
the opponents of these chapters can rely, and in regard to this, as in re- 


gard to the Harleian Ms., a closer examination would probably alter the 
state of the case. [Since the first edition of this work, such an exam- 


ination has been undertaken. 


Dr. Gabler paid due attention to the 


doubt I have here expressed, and disclosed the mistake in regard to this 
Ms. The result is as follows, in his own words (Journ. fur theol. Litt. 


II. Bd. 1 St. 1801): 


‘*T his collation is therefore decisive of the fact 


that the Ebnerian Ms. of the New Testament contains the first chapter 


of Matthew.” 


Of the same character are the arguments founded on the silence of 
the fathers. It is possible that Ignatius Martyr derived the account he 
presents respecting the star, etc., from a tradition ; but, notwithstanding 
what is said by Stroth, we cannot admit that Justin drew his relation of 
the occurrence from any other source than Matthew. 

The whole history contained in the first two chapters of Matthew is 
related by Justin in his Dial. cum Tryph. (p. 86, 87, Rob. Steph. cap. 
78). The narrative is free, but still bears evident. marks of having 


come from Matthew. 


Matthew. 
᾿Ιδοὺ, μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν 
παρεγένοντο 
εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα, 
λέγοντες " 

Ποῦ ἐστιν ὃ τεχϑεὶς βασιλεὺς 
τῶν Ιουδαίων ; 
εἴδομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ 
τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, 
καὶ ἤλϑομεν 
προσκυνῆσαι HUT... 
Καὶ συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς 
ἀρχιερεῖς... Ot δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ " 

Οὕτω γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ 
προφήτου" 
“Kat ov Βηϑλεὲμ, γῆ ᾿Ιούδα, 
οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἰ ἐν τοῖς 
ἡγεμόσιν ᾿Ιούδα" ἐχ σοῦ γὰρ 
ἐξελεύσεται zo ὕμενος, ὅστις 
ποιμανεῖ, τὸν λαὸν μου, 
τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ." 


Justin. 
᾿Ελϑόντων ἀπὸ "Ἀραβίας μάγων, 


καὶ εἰπόντων " 
> 2 ’ ~ >» ~ > ~ 
ES ἀστέρος τοῦ ἔν τῷ οὐρανῷ 
φανέντος ἐγνωκέναι 
ὅτι βασιλεὺς 
7εγέννηται. ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ὑμῶν, 
καὶ ἤλϑομεν 
προσκυνῆσαι HUTOY. 
Καὶ ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 
εἰπόντων " 
ῳ , ᾽ - 
Ot γέγραπται ἕν τῷ 
προφητὴ οὕτως" 
“ Καὶ ov Βηϑλεὲμ, γῆ Ιούδα, 
i Hs 7 
«οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἰ ἐν τοῖς 
ἡγεμόσιν ᾿Ιούδα " ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ 
ἐξελεύσεται ἡγοῦ 'μεένος, ὅστις 
κοι ΄ 
ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου." 


Now how happens it (waiving every other consideration), that Justin 
in his narrative adduces ὌΝ the Old Testament the same text yl 


1 Gtieibath, Somb: Crit. ἜΣ I. Ρ. 809. 


478 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Matthew applies; that he does not take it from the Septuagint, as is his 
custom in regard to citations from the Old Testament; that he cites 
it with the same variations from the Septuagint as Matthew ; and trans- 
lated it from the Hebrew with the same variations, literally, as we find 
in Matthew? e. g. that in his memory, as in Matthew’ 8) 4°73 ND should 
have been substituted for n4773 1 ete. ete. 


Matthew. Justin. 


Kai “aeage εἰς THY οἰκίαν, | Tov δὲ ἀπὸ ᾿Αραβίας μάγων 
| ἐλϑόντων εἰς Βηϑλεὲμ, 


, 
καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν χαὶ προσκυνησαντῶν 


αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τοὺς τὸ παιδίον, 
Ondangidc αὑτῶν, 
προσήνεγκαν αὑτῷ καὶ προσενεγκάντων αὐτῷ 
δῶρα, χφυσὸν καὶ δῶρα, χρυσὸν 
λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν. ] λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν. .. 
Καὶ χφηματισϑέντες κατ᾽ ὕναρ, Καὶ ὃ Ἡρώδης, μὴ ἐπανελϑόντων. 1} 
μὴ ἀνακάμψαι. ΕΣ | ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰ κελευσϑέντα αὐτοῖς 
δι ἄλλης ὁδοῦ Oe ἄλλης ὁδοῦ 
ἀνεχώρησαν ἶ | εἰς τὴν χώραν αὑτῶν 
εἰς τὴν χώραν αὑτῶν. ἀπαλλαγέντων, 
Καὶ ἀποστείλας ἀνεῖλε πάντας πᾶντας ἁπλῶς 
τοὺς παῖδας | τοὺς παῖδας 
τοὺς ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ... ] τοὺς ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ 
Τότε ἐπληρώϑη τὸ ῥηϑὲν ἐκέλευσεν ἀναιρεϑῆναι. 
ὑπὸ “Ιερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου, Καὶ τοῦτο ἐπεπροφητεύετο 
λέγοντος " μέλλειν γενέσϑαι διὰ “Ἱερεμίου 
“ Φωνὴ ἐν “Pats ἠκούσϑη, pean εἰπόντος * 
μ gen i 
κλαυϑμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς" | Φωνὴ ἕν Poe ἡἠκούσϑη, ‘ 


“Ραχὴλ: χλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὑτῆς κλαυϑμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς " 
καὶ οὐκ ἤϑελε παρακληϑῆναι, | “Ραχὴλ: κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὑτῆς, 
ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι." καὶ οὐκ USE παρακληϑῆναι, 
| OTL οὔκ εἰσι." 


The similarity in point of phraseology evinces, in more than one in- 
stance, the source from which Justin drew ; but the citation from Jere- 
miah is decisive. How does it happen that the same prophetic passage 
of the Old Testament occurred to his mind asto Matthew’s; that, con- 
trary to his custom, he, like the latter, deserted the Septuagint, and 
translated the Hebrew just as Matthew did, to a syllable? How hap- 
pens it that he does this twice in one short narrative 1 

Besides, does not Ireneus, at a later period, in his third book, 9th 
chapter, give the entire contents of Matthew’s 2d chapter, expressly 
designating the source from which he drew? Do we not find the same 
in Tertullian, in his 5th book against Marcion, 9th chapter? Celsus, 
moreover, knew of two Gospels which contained genealogies, and men- 
tions the arrival of the wise men under the guidance of a star.! 

Even if Justin’s pupil, Tatian, did omit Matthew’s genealogy in his 


1 Orig. Contr. Cels. L. U1. c. 32. L. 1. ο. 40. 58. 66. 


aS. τὸ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 479 


Monotessaron, can anything be inferred from this? Did he not like- 
wise omit Luke’s? 

It is worthy of notice, that in the early times, before the third century, 
considerable anxiety was felt in regard to the discrepancy of the gene- 
alogies, and attempts were made to reconcile them. Julius Africanus 
refuted these hypotheses of his predecessors, to make way for one of his 
own.! This candid and intelligent critic (for such he was, as is shown 
by his letter to Origen on the story of Susanna), and his predecessors, 
likewise, were so far from finding in the Mss. then in circulation good 
ground for rejecting this chapter and thus ending the difficulty at once, 
that both he and they resorted to explanations of the most forced char- 
acter. 

And would it not even be a matter of surprise, if Matthew, who 
strove to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, had neglected 
to show that he was of the house of David, a circumstance which the 
Jews regarded as a most essential characteristic of the Messiah ? 

Further, is not the same mode of procedure, the same peculiar style 
which distinguishes Matthew throughout his work, evinced in the cita- 
tions from the Old Testament, which occur in these two chapters? 


§ 75. 
Mark 16: 9—29. 


The Gospel of Mark ended formerly in many Mss. with ἐφοβοῦντο 
yao (16: 8), and contained nothing at all of what we find now in print- 
ed books from ἀναστὰς (v. 9) to the end. ‘This we are told by worthy 
and celebrated men of the fourth century, as e. g. by Gregory of Nyssa, 
in Cappadocia, in his second Homily on the resurrection, in which he 
says, that in the more accurate Mss., the Gospel of Mark ended with 
ἐφοβοῦντο yao; and by Jerome, who appeals to almost all the Greek 
Mss., in which, according to his testimony the verses from 16:9 to the 
end of the Gospel, were not to be found ( Quest. ad Hedib. Quast. 3). 

It is a serious matter, that, according to the declaration of the first- 
mentioned father, the more accurate copies did not contain this portion 
of the narrative; and the account of Jerome appears still more author- 
itative, as he even appeals to nearly all the Mss. 

He himself, however, restricts his statement in regard to the number 
of the Mss. For he says that, in quibusdam exemplaribus, εἰ maxime 
Gracis codicibus, there occurred an important various reading after the 
14th verse in this same doubtful passage ; whence it is clear that there 
were not wanting numerous Mss. which contained this disputed portion 
of the history, and that in the first statement something must be attrib- 
uted tothe rhetorical style of the author (Dial. 11. Adv. Pelag. c. 15). 
Next, what is meant by the more accurate copies of the Nyssene father ? 
Were they the copies which were most carefully written? This would 


1 Τὰς μὲν τῶν λοιπῶν δόξας os βιαίους καὶ διεψευσμένους ἀποδείξας. Euseb. 
ἘΠ 1, γὙγ. 6. Gs 


480 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


seem to be what he meant by the expression ; but in deciding this ques- 
tion, we are not to ask about the care of the transcribers, but by what 
critics the text was settled, to what Recension the Mss. belonged. Was 
it to the Recension of Origen, Hesychius, or Lucian? Certainly not 
to Origen’s, or the Palestinian Recension ; for Victor of Antioch and 
the Scholiasts are unanimous in stating, that the [JaAavorevaiuy evayyed- 
cov contained the verses! The Mss. of the Recension of Lucian, too,, 
invariably contain it. We cannot say exactly thesame in regard to the 
Egyptian Recension. . 

Its most distinguished Mss., viz. C and L, together with the Lower- 
Egyptian version, recognize the passage. The Vatican Ms., however, 
the oldest in our possession, deviates from the Recension as to this point, 
and excludes it. It4is true that this deviation is attributable solely to 
the private opinion of the calligraphist; but so much, at least, is plain, 
viz, that he must have been acquainted with Mss. which led him to ven- 
ture this critical innovation. a 

If we look further back to the period of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, we find 
that the Greek text of Codex D contains the passage in question, as 
far as the words in v. 15, πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. These words, with the re- 
mainder of the chapter, have been destroyed by time and supplied by a 
later hand. The oldest father who refers to this passage is Ireneus 
(Adv. Har. L. Til. c.10): “In fine autem evangelit ait Marcus: et 
quidem dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in ceelos et 
sedet ad dextram Dei.” The next is Hyppolytus, at the beginning of 
the treatise περὶ Χαρισμάτων, which is enumerated among his works 
on the celebrated marble monumé¢nt.? The Peschito contains it, as well 
as the Latin version of the first period. True, the splendid but much in- 
jured Ms. at Verona wants all after chap. 16, v. 7, and the neater and 
less injured Ms. at Brescia, which contains a mixed text, has met with a 
still greater loss, viz. allof the book after 15: 66; but the better preserv- 
ed Mss. of Vercelli and Corvey, the fathers Augustine and Ambrose,’ to- 
gether with Leo the Great, all three of whom made use of the ancient 
version, are evidences in favor of the passage in question. 

The Sahidic version has a considerable chasm here, from a loss of 
part of the Ms., which Woide supplies from Cod. Askew. From this it 
may certainly be argued that the Valentinians read the passage, but 
not that the Upper-Egyptian version contained it. 

Though hardly any Mss. or versions, which have come to us unin- 
jured, want the disputed verses, there is still this difficulty, viz. that, ac- 
cording to the testimony of Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa, according to 
the Vatican Ms., and Codd. 137, 138, both of which mark the passage 
with asterisks, and according to a scholium of which we shall speak 
presently, many ancient Mss. did not contain them. Something of 
this kind seems to be evinced by the Canones of Eusebius, which are 


1 Matthezi, Nov. Test. Τὶ. II. Animadv. ad Marc. 16: 9 seq. p. 266. Birch, N. T. 
Adnot. ad απο loc. p. 316. 

2 We shall look in vain in Clem. Romanus for the passage referred to in some 
editions of the N. T. It is in Pseudo-Clement’s Constit. Apost. L. VIII. c. 1. 
I find, too, no passage in Justin Martyr, nor in Clement of Alexandria. They 
can occur only in a catena. 

3 The principal passage is Ambros. Exposit. in Lucam. L. X. fin. 


EE ἀν 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 481 


continued only to ἐφοβοῦντο yag.! Yet this circumstance is not of so 
much importance as is thought by some. ‘These Canones do not give 
us any information as to the condition of the Mss., but only as to the 
Harmony of Ammonius; for they were merely an expedient made use 
of by Eusebius to designate the sections of the Harmony in the common 
Mss. of the Gospels. Now the reason that the Canones end at this 
point, is simply that the Harmony of Ammonius did not contain the pas- 
sage, and therefore no reference could be made to it. 

That in ancient times the verses were wanting in many Mss., is cer- 
tain ; the fact is well attested, though it scarcely appears in the revised 
text. Now how can we explain this fact? Were men pressed by exe- 
getical difficulties ; and did they, because this passage could not be re- 
conciled with the other Gospels, attempt to get rid of it in a summary 
manner ? 

Jerome makes a confession of this nature. The Latins could not re- 
concile the discordant expressions of Matthew and Mark, vespere sabbati 
and mane sabbati; and tried to find in the Mss. of Mark which wanted the 
passage in question, an excuse for rejecting what they could not explain.” 
Supposing that the Mss. did not at first present any excuse for doing 
so, might not the Latins be induced by the difficulty mentioned, to 
make the passage suspicious in a critical view, by marking it with 
signs to that effect? This being done, subsequent copyists would not 
fail to get completely rid of this inconvenient passage. 

But were this explanation correct, the passage must have been wanting 
in the Mss. of the Latins; while, according to Jerome, it was not these, 
but'the Greek Mss., which did not contain it. Other indications, too, 
point ustoGreek Mss. The Greeks, however, knew nothing of this diffi- 
culty. Gregory of Nyssa, in the discourse before cited, correctly ex- 
plains ὀψὲ σαββάτων by the expressions oye καιροῦ, Owe τῆς ὥρας, 
owe τῆς χρείας.3 If the πρωΐ πρώτῃ σαββάτου in Mark 16: 9, occa- 


1 Schol. Cod.apud Birch. “Ews ὥὧδε--- Εὐσέβιος ἐκανόνισεν. In the celebra- 
ted Alexandr. Codex the numbers extend no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. 


2 “ Hujus questionis duplex solutio est: aut enim non accipimus Marci testi- 
monium, quod in raris fertur evangeliis, omnibus Grecie libris pene hoc capit- 
ulum in fine non habentibus, presertim cum diversa atque contraria ceteris 
evangelistis narrare videatur; aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dix- 
erit: Mattheus, quod Dominus surrexit vespere Sabbati, Marcus autem, quando 
eum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est mane primo sabbati,” ete. (Ad Hedib. 
mete ri Opp. Hieron. T. I. p. 825. Ed. Vallars. F. Matthei, N. T. Tom. IV. p. 

seq. 


3 Greg. Nyss. Opp. T. III. p. 402. Ed. Paris. 1638. So, too, Dionysius of Al- 
exandria in Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem, Bevereg. Pandect. Canon. Oxon. 1672, 
and at the end-of Greg. Thaumat. Macar. et Basil. Opp. 1622, Paris. Some, he 
says, understand the word 6yé according to common usage, as being equivalent 
to ἑσπέρα: learned men, however, say that ὀψέ denotes delay and length of 
time, βραδυτῆτα καὶ μακρὸν χρόνον. An anonymous writer, Es τὰς μυροφόρους 
γυναῖκας (inter Spuria Chrysostomi, Tom. VIII. p. 159. Montfauc.), appeals to the 
common mode of speech in Greek: we εἰύϑαμεν λέγειν, ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας, ὀψὲ Tor 
καιροῦ, frequent and well-known expressions. 

1 must here be allowed to mention another possible ground of the omission in 
some Mss. of the passage in question, viz. the difference of opinion in respect to 
Lent. The letter of Dionysius to Basilides was occasioned by an inquiry on 
this subject. Some thought that our Lord rose at midnight, and therefore they 
left off fasting about this time; the Romans believed him to have risen in the 


482 THE HISTORICAL BUOKS 


sioned difficulty, when compared with the owe of Matthew, they would 
have seen that the portion which they felt it necessary to reject must 
begin several verses earlier. The words λίαν πρωϊ---αἀνατείλαντος τοῦ 
ἡλίου (Mark 16: 2), are properly the parallel clause to Matthew’s owé 
σαββάτων, and are as contradictory to it as the expression in v. 9. There 
are no other difficulties in the passage in Mark, which may not be urged 
likewise as to Matthew, and in part as to Luke, compared with John. 
We cannot, therefore, expect from this quarter any grounds of decision 
as to its genuineness, and must turn to the internal evidence in the pas- 
sage itself. 

Mark’s mode of narration is never so irregular and disorderly, as to 
lead us toexpect such an awkward termination of his work as ἐφοβοῦντο 
yao, in v. 8, would be. It is plain that this, instead of being a conclu- 
sion, is but a preparation for something to follow. 

Let us consider the tenor given to his account of the resurrection by 
this termination: The women came to the sepulchre, found the stone 
rolled away, were addressed by a young man clothed in a white gar- 
ment, who told them that Jesus had risen, and commanded them to 
communicate this information to the disciples, with the injunction that 
they should go into Galilee, where they should see our Lord. They, 
however, said nothing to any man, for they were afraid. Here the Gos- 
pel would end. If Mark terminated it in this way, he closed his ac- 
count of an occurrence which was the most important evidence in favor 
of Christianity, with assuring us that nothing was known of the resurrec- 
tion at the time; that nothing could have been known about it, inas- 
much as those on whose testimony the fact rests, told no one of it. "He 
himself might then be asked, how he knew and was able to relate what 
happened to the women, if they told no one of it. An inconceivable 
want of consideration in so important a matter! Even if he had no in- 
tention of attesting the occurrence by further evidence, he was at any 
rate bound to inform the reader how the incident in respect to the wo- 
men was divulged and became notorious. He would thus present clear- 
ly at least one argument drawn from the declarations of witnesses, 
though that be the weakest of all which are exhibited in the Gospels. 

Now this very portion of the history which is denied to have been 


morning, and did not break their fast till cock-crowing: οὗ μὲν γὰρ ἐν “Ῥώμη 
ἀδελφοὶ, ὥς φασι, περιμένουσι τὸν ἀλέκτορα. We know with what pertinacity 
the churches adhered to such traditionary usages. Now those who broke their 
fast at midnight had this passage of Mark against them; particularly the first 
words, ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου. If he arose early on the first 
day of the week, it was necessary that the fast should be prolonged till 
morning. Yet a satisfactory solution of the difficulty was found, in referring 
πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου to the next words, ἐφάνη πρῶτον. (Greg. Nyssen. in the 
above-mentioned discourse, p. 411, and Victor Antioch. in Caten. in Marc. Ed. 
Possini). Before this solution was obtained, however, it may very probably have 
been the case that these verses of Mark were treated as suspicious in order to 
vindicate particular usages. We find them excluded from an Egyptian Ms., 
Cod. B; Cod. L at least casts suspicion on them ina Scholium, of which we 
shall speak presently ; and Ammonius excluded it from his Monotessaron. Now 
it was customary in some churches of Egypt to break the fast before the cock-crow- 
ing, as Basilides says: περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐνταῦϑα ἔλεγες, ore τάχιον, viz. τῶν ἐν Ῥώμῃ 
ἀδελφῶν. This coincidence deserves to be remarked, though it is not by any 
means sufficient to serve as the basis for any positive conclusion. 


συ τὸ δον 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 483 


written by Mark, is an account how the women came to tell of what 
had happened to them, how little credit was given to their narrative, and 
from what other subsequent occurrences satisfactory assurance of the 
fact was obtained. ; 

The preposterous nature of such a termination, both in a grammati- 
cal and historical point of view, was perceived even by those Greeks 
who did not receive the passage; for some of them added a conclusion 
of their own, which satisfied at least the principal requisitions that could 
be made of the author. It was as follows: Πᾶάντα δὲ τὸ παρηγγελμένα 
τοῖς περὲ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν. Meta δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐ- 
τὸς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπὸ ανατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλε Ov αὐτῶν 
τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφϑαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας (Schol. Cod. 
L. et in marg. versionis Philoz.). Vet us hear what the great master in 
matters of New Testament criticism says on this subject. He calls the 
conclusion ἐφοβοῦντο yao “ clausulam abruptissimam ;” and further de- 
clares, “omnibus incredibile videri debebat, Marcum sic finivisse com- 
mentariolum suum,” etc.! 

We have come, then, tothis point. It is admitted, that the termina- 
tion would be abrupt, the book grammatically and historically incom- 
plete, if Mark had closed his work at 16:8. Supposing the Gospel, 
then, to have once actually terminated thus, either the author must have 
been suddenly taken away by death, or he must have been interrupted 
in his work by the death of his voucher. In the first case it was impos- 
sible that the work should have any further addition from him ; in the 
other case, not only was such an addition possible, but it was his duty 
not to leave the book in this condition; he was bound to conclude it 
properly as soon as circumstances permitted. 

It is only on the supposition that the author was overtaken by death 
before he had finished his work, that we can believe the remainder to 
have been added by another hand. In that case, however, the language 
of the part added must wear a somewhat different appearance from the 
rest; as is the fact in regard to the 8th book of Thucydides, which 15 
supposed, from the change in the style, to have been added by his 
daughter after her father’s death. 

If it be objected, that the addition to Mark is too small for us to de- 
termine anything from the style, I answer, it is well known that a differ- 
ent tone and a peculiar style of expression may manifest themselves in a 
short compass.* As to his death, moreover, history informs us that af- 
ter the composition of his Gospel he left Rome, went to Egypt, and 
taught at Alexandria.? Thus we have no internal or external grounds 
for supposing the author’s death; which alone could justify the position 
that the conclusion of the book is by another hand. 


1 Griesbach, Comm. Crit. in text. Grec. N. T. Particula II. p. 199. 

2 We have a proof of this in the very conclusion (πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα 
x. τ. 4.) which, as we have said, was appended tosome Mss. The expression 
συντόμως in it is almost wholly foreign to the N. T. Instead of ἑερόν, the usual 
biblical expression is ἅγεον ; and ἄφϑαρτον, connected with κηρυ)μεα. comes from 
the rhetorical language of the fathers. Such deviation from N. T. diction do we 
find in the compass of four lines. 

3 Euseb. H. E. Τῷ, ΤΙ. c. 16. Epiph. Her. LI. ὃ 6. Hieronym, Catal. v. Mar- 
cus. Gelas. Decret. de script. apoeryph. Mansi Collect. Concil. T. VIL. p. 147. 
Eutych. Alexandr. Annal. T. J. p. 334. and 337. text. Arab. 


484 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


On the other supposition, viz. that he was interrupted in his work by 
the death of his voucher, we can readily see how there may have been 
in the most ancient times some copies with, and some without, this con- 
cluding passage. The friends of the history of Jesus took or procured 
copies of what was already written; particularly, as but little was want- 
ing to the completion of the work. When, after some time, the conclu- 
sion appeared, it was appended in some Mss., and in others was ne- 
glected. Thus it happened that there continued to be Mss, without 
the conclusion, long after it was written. 

The death of the two apostles with whom Mark was at Rome, may 
easily, as every one will see, have had such an effect on the situation of 
the Christians in the capital, as to occasion interruptions of their meet- 
ings and of Mark’s occupations, and perhaps, too, Mark’s immediate 
departure from the city. It appears to me, moreover, that instead of the 
present concise account of the resurrection, we should have had a more 
detailed narration of this most important event, had the witness whose 
statements Mark presents in his Gospel, communicated information res- 
pecting it. 

On the contrary, however, we see the historian, who elsewhere seems 
to place his chief merit in the circumstantiality of his narrative, timor- 
ously contenting himself with general outlines of the final events of the 
Gospel history, as though he was unwilling to trust himself when depri- 
ved of the authority and testimony of the eyewitness. Every thing is as 
it must have been under the supposed circumstances. 

Others despatch this question in a shorter way. They take it for 
granted that, at any rate, Mark’s genuine conclusion is lost, and then, 
from the admission they manufacture for themselves, pronounce the 
present conclusion not to be genuine. By the convenient words, at 
any rate, they avoid all argument, and even any explanation how the 
loss of the genuine conclusion can be regarded as possible. ‘Though it 
is true that a portion of Luke’s history was lost unobserved from the 
middle of the book, yet we can show that it eluded attention on ac- 
count of an ὁμοιοτέλευτον. The same ought to be shown in this case. 
How could the conclusion of the book disappear and the circumstance 
be unnoticed? It must have attracted attention. If it happened before 
copies had been taken, before the publication of the Gospel, Mark might 
easily have remedied it, and was bound to do so; if it occurred after 
copies were taken, the genuine conclusion must at least have been pre- 
served in some Mss., and must it not then be the one which we now 
haye? 


4 


§ 76. 


Joun (παν. 21. 


In reading the 36th and 3Ist verses of the 20th chapter of John’s 
Gospel, we expect that the book is to be there concluded, and are per- 
plexed to find, that after the writer has, as it were, taken the last look at 
his work, and apologized for its incompleteness by stating its object, 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 485 


which allowed him only to relate such events as proclaimed Jesus to be 
the Son of God, the Christ, the author of life to men,—that after thus 
(apparently) concluding what he had undertaken to accomplish, he ab- 
ruptly commences his narrative anew. . This it was that first excited 
suspicion respecting the last chapter, which is so completely dissevered 
from connexion with the rest of the history; and further plausibility 
was soon conferred on the suspicion by the researches of learned men.! 
No one, however, has attacked it with so much force as a celebrated 
biblical scholar of our own times.® He regards it as an appendix by 
another hand, and explains the occasion of its composition in the follow- 
ing way. 

The saying had spread abroad, that John was to live on this earth 
till the last coming of our Lord, according to the express promise of 
Jesus (John 21:22, 23). John was now dead, and the Saviour had not 
appeared. From this fact arose injurious inferences in respect to the 
delay of Christ’s coming, and even in respect to the truth of Christianity. 
To obviate these, some well-meaning man composed this supplement to 
John’s Gospel, and showed from the language of Jesus that an incorrect 
signification would be assigned to it, if it were interpreted as promising 
ἐὰν the coming of our Lord should take place during the lifetime of 

ohn. 

His first argument is, that the difference of style shows it to have been 
an appendix by another hand. John, who is accustomed always to 
speak of himself in the third person, uses here the first person singular, 
in the Attic dialect moreover, o(uae (21: 25), and the first person plural 
(21: 24), οἴδαμεν ὅτι x. τ. A. 

Now, how frequently he expresses himself in the same way in his 
Epistles, which were written at the same time. Does he not use the 
words, γράφω, ἔγραψα, ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν (1 Ep. 9: 18, 14. 1: 1, 
2,3, seq.)? Does he not say at the commencement of his Gospel, 
ἐϑεασάμεϑα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (1:14)? And has he never, in any other 
part of his book, used Attic forms? What then, are ἀχκηκοαμὲν and 
ἑωράκαμεν (John 8: 1}. 4: 42. δ: 37. 8: 88. 14: 9)? 

It is said, however, that there have crept into this chapter, from tra- 
dition, inaccurate statements, which cannot have been made by John. 
The disciples are represented as living in Galilee between the resurrec- 
tion and ascension of Jesus; which cannot be correct, as eight days af- 
ter the resurrection they are still at Jerusalem (John 20: 26). 

But, after making their observations and inquiries on the theatre of 
his death and resurrection, they may, sometime during the following 
32 days, have gone to Galilee, whither they were directed to go after the 
resurrection, not only by the account of the women, but likewise by our 
Saviour himself (Matth. 26: 82. Mark 14: 28). 

It is replied, however, that directly after the resurrection they receiv- 
ed command not to leave Jerusalem (Luke 24: 49). How then could 
they be in Galilee? 


1 Grotius, Adnot. ad Joann, XX. 30. Ger. John Vossius, Harm. Evang. L. IIL. 
Cap. 4. ὃ 8. Joann. Clericus, Biblioth. Univers. T. IL. p. 473. 

2 Eberh. Gottl. Paulus, in the “ Neuen Repert. fur bibl. und morgenl: Litt.” 
Th. Il. 


486 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


The case is not as represented. The Acts of the Apostles is more 
precise on this point. Our Lord lived forty days with his disciples, be- 
fore he enjoined upon them not to leave Jerusalem till they, οὐ μετὰ 
πολλὰς ἡμέρας, within a few days, should receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 
1: 9, 4,5). The idea that they received the injunction directly after 
the resurrection, does not find countenance even in Luke’s Gospel ; but 
there, as in the Acts, it was our Lord’s last direction, after which he was 
parted from them and was taken up into heaven. ‘There are, therefore, 
more than thirty days remaining for the occurrences in Galilee. 

Is it any thing incredible, that John himself should have refuted an 
error which arose in regard to him during his lifetime, and the ill conse- 
quences of which were apparent?) Why should he surrender to another 
hand a task which he could best perform himself, and which it was es- 
pecially incumbent on him to perform ? 

Examine the narrative. From its nature it must have been composed 
before John’s death. It is animated by a particularity which we could 
expect only from an eye-witness, by whom every circumstance was re- 
marked with extreme interest, and lodged deep in his memory. He not 
only recalls every individual concerned, though he wrote many years af- 
ter the occurrence, but many incidental things which one would far less 
expect to find stated. He still knows exactly how and with what 
Peter girt himself in haste to go to our Lord. With the practised eye 
of a fisherman, he judges the distance of the ship from the land: J¢ 
was not far, but as it were two hundred cubits, from land. He still 
knows the number of the fishes which they caught. Nor does he give 
merely a general statement of the number; not a single one escapes 
him: They were an hundred fifty and three. He still wonders, too, 
how it happened that the net did not break. 

Now who could know all these minute circumstances after the lapse 
of years, unless he had been one of those engaged in catching the fish- 
es, and had shared them with the rest? Is not the eye-witness and par- 
ticipator visible every where? Who was there that could have written 
in this manner after John’s death? Was he not one of the most youth- 
ful of the disciples of Jesus, and did he not die a πρεσβύτερος, an old 
man ? 

He himself perceived, however, that such an appendix, subjoined af- 
ter the apparent conclusion of his work, might be subject to suspicion ; 
and therefore he added expressly : J¢ is ‘this disciple (viz. he who lay in 
Jesus’ bosom, and of whom Jesus spoke thus), who testifies these things 
and wrote them. So much precaution has he himself taken. 

Now if the style is not his, if the narrative is interlarded with inaccu- 
rate traditions, and yet his subscription is put to the book for the sake 
of the authority of his name, it is a forgery, and we can make no great 
account of the honesty of the well-meaning man who committed it. 

On the other hand, if we compare the words in 21: 8 with 6: 19, in 
which likewise John designates distance on the water, we find a 
more than accidental similarity, reminding us of the former occupation 
of the writer. Another of his customs, which we have mentioned a- 
bove, with examples (§ 60, towards the end), viz. that of accompanying 
the words of our Lord with interpretations of his own, is exhibited in 
this chapter. There is even a remarkable similarity in phraseology to 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 487 


an instance in the former part of the Gospel: 21:19, τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε, 
σημαίνων ποίῳ ϑανάτῳ δοξάσει tov Dov; 12: 33, τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγε, 
σημαίνων ποίῳ ϑανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποϑνήσκειν. 

And how much fidelity is exhibited in the narrative! Can it be the 
production of an impostor? mere gossip, compiled from various reports ? 
How psychological is his representation of the demeanor of the fisher- 
men, particularly. How could he so happily delineate Peter’s conduct 
in exact accordance with his character? Peter no sooner hears that it 
is our Lord, than he throws himself impetuously into the sea to get to 
him ; exactly as we should expect from the vehemence of his feelings, 
and his deportment in other cases. The conduct of the other disciples 
is different ; they know it is our Lord, but have not presence of mind 
enough to speak to him. 

Jesus afterwards asks Peter three times: Lovest thou me?—a mild 
reproof for the past, for his having three times denied him. How ap- 
propriate! How entirely free from passion and from human feeling ! 

The apostle appears differently. At the third repetition of the ques- 
tion, he cannot retain his composure ; his character is again displayed. 
He is not angry, however; how could he be at this moment? We 
should expect that the affection of his mind would be different. He is 
grieved. 

Jesus quiets the impetuous disciple by giving him his whole confi- 
dence ; showing him, however, at the same time, the prospect of a 
death of suffering. ‘The apostle understands our Lord, but shrinks not 
at the prospect ; he does not stand embarrassed and lost in thought re- 
specting himself. In regard to thousands this would be unnatural ; but 
not in regard to him. Such must have been the first impression on his 
mind ; such it was on a former occasion (22: 33), and must still more 
have been so on this. 

What, now, is more natural than the particular turn which his mind 
takes ; viz. that he should inquire what was to become of him with 
whom he vied in our Lord’s affections? And what is more suitable 
than the reply of Jesus: Is it any matter to thee, if I have allotted him a 
milder fate ? 

This chapter, then, has far too much truth of representation and in- 
ternal fidelity, too much consistency with the character and situation of 
the persons, to be regarded as a compilation of various reports, or as a 
fiction of pious fraud. 

In regard to the last two verses, however: This is the disciple which 
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his 
testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus 
did, etc.; if, on the ground that the phraseology is that of a third person, 
and the last words contain a hyperbole, we suppose them not to have 
been written by John, but that, as Dr. Less thinks, they were added 
by the church at Ephesus, in confirmation of the appendix, we have here 
the authority of contemporaries, the members of a church of great res- 
pectability, to prove that he was the author of the chapter. 


488 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


§ 77. 


ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 


The Acts and Gospel of Luke together form a whole, of which the 
latter is the first part, and the former the second. In the Gospel he 
presents the history of Jesus till his ascension; in the Acts he resumes 
the thread of the narrative, where he had dropped it in his former history. 
By comparing the beginning of the Acts with the end of the Gospel, we 
see clearly, that in writing the latter, he reserved a detailed account of 
the ascension for his following work, and that, while occupied in finish- 
ing the Gospel, he already had the intention of continuing the history, 
as he afterwards did in the Acts. 

Thus Luke himself regarded the two works. The Gospel he calls in 
Acts 1: 1, πρῶτον λόγον, the first treatise, the first part, the object of 
which was to acquaint us with the actions and doctrines of Jesus, ὧν 
ἤρξατο ποιεῖν τὲ καὶ διδάσκειν. This could be called a first part only 
in reference to a second. The Acts, consequently, are the δεύτερος 
λογος, the object of which is to inform us respecting the consequences 
and results of our Saviour’s projects after his death, respecting the acts 
δι his disciples, and the progress and increase of the sect he had found- 
ed. 


§ 78. 


The contents of the book are as follows. After our Lord has given 
his last injunctions, he ascends into heaven. The apostles supply the 
place of Judas (—2:). On the day of Pentecost the Spirit is poured out ; 
effects of it; ill-founded opinions of some of the spectators; counter- 
explanation of Peter in an address to the people; its impression on the 
hearers. Increasing respect for the apostles; circumstances of the 
church at Jerusalem (—2:). Peter and John heal a man lame from his 
birth, in the temple ; astonishment and assemblage of the peopie on ac- 
count of it. Peter declares Jesus to be the author of the miracle. The 
captain of the temple hastens thither, sees the tumult, hears the speak- 
er, and takes him with his companion to prison (—4:). On the follow- 
ing day the Sanhedrim assembles; the two apostles are brought before 
it. Peter defends himself with boldness. He and John are set at liber- 
ty, with the injunction to teach no longer concerning Jesus. ‘They come 
to their companions, and are received with enthusiasm (—4: 32). Com- 
munity of goods among the Christians ; hypocritical fraud of Ananias 
and his wife (—5: 12). Miraculous cures are performed by the apos- 
tles; the Sanhedrim, vexed at these miracles, imprisons the apostles. 
An angel liberates them ; they teach publicly in the temple ; are appre- 
hended anew, and carried before the Sanhedrim. They defend them- 
selves; Gamaliel addresses the council ; at his instance the apostles are 
set at liberty, after being scourged ; they, however, continue to teach in 
the temple (—6:). The Hellenists murmur respecting the care taken of 
their widows; deacons are elected for this business; and among them 
. is Stephen. His zeal for converting the people and his violent death 


4? 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 489 


(—8:). Philip teaches at Samaria; many believe ; among them Si- 
mon, who offers money for the gifts of the Spirit. On the road to Ga- 
za, Philip meets with the treasurer of Candace; instructs him respect- 
ing the Messiah, and baptizes him (—9:). Saul persecutes the disci- 
ples of Jesus; is converted while thus employed, and then preaches Je- 
sus at Damascus; is for that reason obliged to flee; goes to Jerusalem 
and then to Tarsus (—9: 31). Peter visits the believers in Lydda; 
cures Eneas ; visits Joppa; restores Tabitha to life; baptizes Corne- 
lius at Ceesarea ; justifies himself before the church at Jerusalem for 
baptizing this Gentile (—11: 19). 

Meanwhile the church at Antioch takes its rise. Barnabas is sent 
thither from Jerusalem; seeks Saul ; and they perform together the du- 
ties of the ministry (—11: 26). At Antioch Agabus prophesies a famine ; 
Saul and Barnabas are on this account sent to the Holy City. At this 
time Agrippa puts to death James the elder; and casts Peter into pris- 
on, who is miraculously liberated and departs to another place ; Agrip- 
pa dies (—12: 24). Saul and Barnabas are sent from Antioch to preach 
in foreign countries. They goto Cyprus; from thence to the continent 
into Asia Minor. An account is given of what they did in Antioch of 
Pisidia, at Iconium, at Lystra, of their return and report of their pro- 
ceedings (—15: 1). Dissension in the church at Antioch respecting the 
obligatory force of Jewish institutions upon the Gentiles. Paul and 
Barnabas are sent a second time to the Holy City. Solemn consulta- 
tion at Jerusalem, and decision of the question in dispute. A deputa- 
tion from Jerusalem accompanies Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch 
(—15: 36). Paul and Barnabas concert a new journey to Asia Minor ; 
they separate; Paul goes with Silas. At Lystra, Paul and Silas take 
Timothy to be their companion; travel through Phrygia and Gala- 
tia; embark for Europe (—IG: 10). ἢ 

Luke accompanies them from Troas to Philippi: what befalls 
them there. They travel through Macedonia to Athens and Corinth 
(—18: 2). Paul teaches at Corinth ; is driven thence; goes by way of 
Ephesus to Jerusalem; thence returns to Ephesus, where he teaches till 
he is driven from this city also (—20:1). He again turns his course to 
Macedonia and Achaia; repairs once more to Jerusalem with Luke; 
isimprisoned. Paul’s defence before the people; before the Sanhe- 
drim; before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa the younger ; his departure 
for Rome ; occurrences on the voyage, and arrival at Rome. 

The whole book divides itself into three sections ; viz. first, the estab- 
lishment of Christianity in Palestine; secondly, the origin of the church 
at Antioch, and expeditions thence into the heathen countries of Asia ; 
and lastly, expeditions to Europe, in which Luke appears as Paul’s com- 
panion. ‘This last section might be divided further into two parts ; viz. 
occurrences in relation to Paul which took place after the historian had 
become closely connected with him (16: 10), and such occurrences af- 
ter the period when Luke became his inseparable companion (20: 6— 
28: 31). 


§ 79. 
In a portion of his work the author does not merely represent him- 
self as an eye-witness of the events he relates, but introduces himself 
- §2 


ς 
~ 


490 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


into the narrative as a participator in them; though this is not the case 
till a late stage of the history (Acts 16: 10 seq. and 20: 6 seq.). He may, 
however, have witnessed a great part of the events which he narrates in 
the first section of his book, unless Palestine, where he resided during 
the life of Jesus, was left by him directly after our Lord’s death. As it 
would be precipitate and arbitrary to extend the declaration which he 
makes in the introduction of his Gospel, to everything which he relates 
as having taken place in Palestine, without recollecting that it proper- 
ly refers only to the contents of the Gospel ; so it would be no less ar- 
bitrary to assume that he did not remain in that country an hour long- 
er than the compass of his Gospel requires. The Procemium asserts 
Luke’s residence in Palestine during the period referred to; but does 
not prevent us from supposing a continuance of his stay. 

This being premised, we must learn from the tenor of the book of 
Acts, how long we can and ought to regard him as having resided in 
Palestine. If we consider the uncommon knowledge of facts evinced 
by the writer in the section relating to what occurred in Palestine, we 
shall readily believe that he had not as yet left the country. ‘This per- 
fect acquaintance with facts continues without diminution to the se¢- 
ond section, i.e. the founding of the church at Antioch (11: 19). 
From this moment he turns away from Palestine, and does not speak at 
all of the elders of Jerusalem or of occurrences there, except when de- 
puties from Antioch appear in that city, and then only during their stay 
(Acts 12: 1—25, and 15: 4—3v). 

The abrupt transition from occurrences in Palestine may have arisen 
either from a sudden inaction on the part of the elders and ministers 
there, and consequently a deficiency of events worthy of record, or from 
a change in the point of view occupied by the historian. The more in- 
credible the former supposition is, the greater ground is there for 
adopting the latter; viz. that Luke left Palestine when Christianity be- 
gan to take root in Antioch. After a time, however, he deserts the 
church at Antioch likewise. The reason of this change is apparent in 
the course of the narrative itself. Luke removed to Troas (Acts 16: 8 
—10), where he was ignorant of the occurrences in the church at Anti- 
och. On the other hand, it was owing to this change of residence that 
he was an eye-witness of Paul’s reception in Europe and his first pro- 
ceedings in this quarter of the world, and was even his companicn in 
the passage over. This opened the way to further intimacy with him, 

-and thus enabled him to become the historian of the apostle during the 
last period, in which the scene of his former enterprises became more 
and more remote. 

We see how great an influence Luke’s different points of view had upon 
his history ; and we hope to elucidate it further by considering the three 
sections more particularly. In the third section, Luke is explicit and 
diffuse so long as he is at Paul’s side, or even in his vicinity (Acts16. 
10—18:). The more remote he is from the apostle, the more concise is 
his narrative. The events of a year and a half at Corinth he comprises 
in seventeen verses (18: 1—17). Nearly all we learn is the arrival and 
departure of Paul, without a word concerning the importance of the re- 
sult of his labors, or concerning the condition of the church. Im- 
mediately after, he comprises a journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem, 


a eee ee 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: 491 


from thence to Antioch, then through Galatia and Phrygia back again 
to Ephesus, in two verses (18: 22, 23). As soon, however, as the apos- 
tle rejoins Luke (20: 6), the narrative recovers its character, and is ren- 
dered rich and animated by an agreeable particularity. 

In the second section, which is devoted to occurrences connected 
with the church at Antioch, he speaks only of the origin of the church, 
the earliest events there, and the peregrinations of Paul and Barnabas 
from Antioch to Cyprus and Asia Minor (15:1). He then has nothing 
to say till the second mission to Jerusalem. When this was accomplish- 
ed, the apostle abandoned Antioch as his station; and Luke, in the 
course of a few years from this time, became very intimately connected 
with Paul. Now in respect to the journey to Cyprus, the proceedings 
of Paul and Barnabas at the court of the proconsul, their departure, 
their preaching in Antioch of Pisidia, their fortunes at [conium, Lystria, 
etc. (Acts 13: 1—14: 27). the more remarkable circumstances are clear- 
ly and somewhat fully depicted; while such things as were not of an 
unusual character are but slightly noticed. Generally speaking, the 
narrative is very much such an one as Paul and Barnabas may have 
given to the church at Antioch on their return. 

- We next come, however, to a period during which nothing is related 
in regard either to Palestine or Antioch. ‘This is called by Luke in a 
general way, χούνος οὐκ odiyos, no inconsiderable time (Acts 14: 28) ; 
and it actually comprised several years. On careful consideration it 
will be found that the transactions of the first expedition into heathen 
countries may perhaps have taken up two years; but still five whole 
years, to the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius, are passed over as 
though no Antioch and no Paul existed. It is not till the twelfth year 
of this emperor, as we shall see from chr6énological designations here- 
after, that the history commences again with the remarkable dispute 
concerning the obligatory force of the Jewish observances (15: 1 seq). 
Now Luke was in Paul’s company the next year, and may have obtain- 
ed from him a minute knowledge of these recent occurrences (16: 10). 
The five preceding years, nevertheless, remain vacant. He derived no 
information from Paul in regard to them; nor was he himself living in 
Syria or Palestine during the period. These countries certainly con- 
tinued, however, to be the special field of Christian history. Who can 
believe that for so long a time nothing memorable took place in Pales- 
tine and Syria, or was undertaken by Paul, who had a natural repug- 
nance to inactivity? Whether Luke had gone to Troas, where Paul 
met him subsequently, or was in some other place, certainly he was not 
in Antioch or Palestine. Nothing of the kind occurs elsewhere through- 
out the book ; in the third section the order of time is pursued constant- 
ly, even though the periods are not always very copiously treated of. 

The first section, compared with the two last, exhibits a fulness of 
which neither of the others can boast. If ever the historian shows him- 
self circumstantially and minutely acquainted with facts and discourses, 
it is in relation to the occurrences in Palestine. Indeed, only those 
parts of the third section that narrate incidents of which he was an eye- 
witness, exhibit such particularity as is uniformly displayed throughout 
this section. If, therefore, in any part of his book we ὯΝ reason to 
regard him as an eye-witness, it is here. A comparison with the most 


492 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


animated of those narratives which we know to have been composed 
from personal knowledge, justifies this conclusion as to the whole of the 
first section. 


§ 80. 


From these observations the plan of the author is easily understood. 
Tt was not his object to relate the part borne by each of the apostles in 
the diffusion of Christianity, what churches were founded by each of 
them, and what was their respective fate. Considered in this light, the 
first section of the work would be extremely imperfect. Nor was it his 
design in the third section to present the complete history of Paul to a 
certain period ; for he was not in possession of all the facts requisite for 
this purpose, as we can see from the book of Acts itself, and may be 
still more fully convinced from the 11th chapter of the 2d Epistle to 
the Corinthians. He did not propose to himself either of these under- 
takings beforehand, and then begin to collect materials for its accom- 
plishment. It would have been too late, had he delayed to.commence 
collecting materials for his history until the composition of his Gospel, 
at which time he first formed his intention to add a second part. The 
Acts of the Apostles were not the result of any plan previously formed, 
which he intended to execute by means of subsequent investigations, 
but of the numerous recollections and memoranda which he had stored 
up. Without any reference to completeness or unity, he presents some- 
times remarkable incidents and sometimes large portions of history, just 
as he happened to observe the facts at the various stations to which he 
was led by the circumstances of his life. Through the fortunate variety 
of situation, however, in which he was placed at different times, he ac- 
tually enables his readers to form a general idea of the mode in 
which Christianity was preserved and established after the decease of its 
founder and in a short time diffused into many countries. 


§ Sl. 


The time at which he composed his work and the person for whom it 
was written had a great influence on its character. The Gospel of 
Luke, the third in order of time, did not appear till after Paul’s death, 
and of course, then, the Acts of the Apostles did not; for the Gospel of 
Mark, although it preceded Luke’s, was not published till after the de- 
cease of Peter and Paul (§ 16). Nowif at that time there were found 
to be chasms in the history of Paul, it was no longer possible to derive 
explanations from Paul himself; and if the scene of these events was in 
distant countries, it would have been a very onerous task to procure 
from thence the necessary information in regard to them. Luke was, 
therefore, obliged to renounce the idea of completeness, however de- 
sirous he may have been of attaining it. 

There is yet another circumstance to be considered, which exerted a 
determining influence upon the extent of the work. He dedicated 
this book, as well as his Gospel, to his friend Theophilus, and intended 
it more particularly for his information (Acts’1: 1). In order that it 
may be intelligible to him, explanations, mostly of a geographical na- 
ture, are subjoined by him very frequently, until he comes to the period 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 493 


of Paul’s arrival in Italy. At this point, he ceases to insert such re- 
marks, and seems to be certain that Theophilus is acquainted with 
the situation of the places he afterwards mentions. Precisely similar is 
his manner in regard to the facts themselves. The early proceedings 
ofthe apostle, and his proceedings in later times at Jerusalem and 
subsequently till he arrives at Rome, are treated by Luke with much par- 
ticularity ; but Paul is hardly at Rome when he concludes his nar- 
rative by merely remarking that Paul spent two whole years here. 

Yet, as we see by the apostle’s letters from Rome, Luke was con- 
stantly with him, might have been a spectator of every thing, and must 
often have been a fellow-sufferer with him. And these very occur- 
rences in the capital of the world were of special importance in re- 
gard to the history of Christianity, and were probably the most in- 
teresting in the apostle’s life. The charges of his accusers, his trials, 
his defence, which, as the apostle himself said (Philipp. 1: 12), made his 
bonds in the pretorium honorable and glorious to Christianity, the new 
accessions to the Christian cause which were gained by him, the exer- 
tions of his friends and enemies, the one for his destruction and the 
other for his preservation, were of high moment to his contemporaries 
and to the future disciples of Jesus. In respect to all this he says 
not a word; he does not even mention the judicial sentence which de- 
cided the action brought against the apostle, or any reason why he was 
liberated. 

Luke, then, did not write with a view to his contemporaries in the 
distant countries of Asia, who found great difficulty in procuring cir- 
cumstantial and authentic accounts of these incidents. As little did he 
write with a view to posterity. Friendship for the man whose pious cu- 
riosity,he wished to gratify excluded both considerations from his view. 
It was written for his benefit; and it was only incidentally that others 
reaped advantage from it. The ground of observation which Luke sup- 
posed Theophilus to occupy was, therefore, the standard of his work ; 
and it was only necessary that he should conduct the individual for 
whom he wrote to the point where that individual’s own knowledge 
began. 

Hence, as on the one hand we owe to his friendship for Theophilus 
his determination, by means of a Gospel of his own, to free the history 
of Jesus from the interpolations made in it by unauthenticated writers, 
to separate what was true and exhibit it in a faithful history ; so, on the 
other hand, it can be attributed only to the relation in which his friend 
stood in respect to the facts in the Acts of the Apostles, that no_histori- 
cal account of the occtirrences at Rome was furnished by Luke for the 
benefit of his contemporaries and of coming generations. 


D 


“] 
owe 


§ 
Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles. 


On the chronology of this book much depends in regard to its €x- 
position, and much more in regard to the illustration, of the Pauline 


ll 


494 , THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


Epistles. I have here to correct some inadvertencies which I formerly 
committed.! 

There is hardly any passage in the book more definite in a chrono- 
logical point of view than 11: 28—12: 25. Agabus had prophesied at 
Antioch an approaching famine; on which account the believers made 
a collection for the relief of the necessitous in Judea, and sent it by the 
hands of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem. After Luke has narrated 
the mission of the two teachers (11: 30), he makes a transition to re- 
markable occurrences at the time in the Holy City (12: 1). These are, 
the apprehension of Peter, occasioned bythe gratification of the people 
at the execution of James; his miraculous deliverance and departure 
from Jerusalem ; and the death of Herod Agrippa. After this, we are 
told by Luke, the deputies returned to Antioch (12: 25). The chrono- 
logical coincidence of these events with the residence of the two depu- 
ties at Jerusalem, we infer from the representation of the historian ; not 
merely from the words xar ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν (12: 1), but also from 
the order of the narrative, which includes these events within the period 
during which Barnabas and Paul resided at Jerusalem, no account be- 
ing given of the return of the deputies to Antioch until after these oc- 
currences are narrated. 

Consequently, this period must likewise have included the death of 
Agrippa, which occurred, as represented, about this time. Directly 
after the fast at which Peter’s execution was to have taken place, the 
king left his usual residence at Jerusalem,” and went to Cesarea, which, 
according to both Luke and Josephus, was the place of his death (Acts 
12: 9. Jos. Ant. L. XIX.c. 8. n. 2). His departure for that place oc- 
curred immediately after Peter’s deliverance. Now as the deputies were 
in no haste, the death of the king may easily have occurred during their 
stay in the Holy City. They had no message which it was necessary 
to carry back with despatch, and were no longer needed at Antioch, as 
appears soon after their return (13: 1, 2), and therefore they were not 
required to hasten their journey home. 

Yet, granting that the death of Agrippa did not take place till some 
months after his arrival at Czsarea, and that it is related directly, more 
for the sake of completing the account, than because the event occurred 
while the two teachers abode at Jerusalem; still the occurrences we 
have mentioned must have taken place sometime during the year of 
Agrippa’s death. 

Now we find this year stated definitely in Josephus: Agrippa died 


1 In composing this sketch I have had the following recent writings before 
me: “Vogel, “Versuch uber chronologische Standpuncte in der Lebens- 
geschichte Pauli’ in Gabler’s ‘“ Journal fir auserlesene theol. Litt.’’ I Bd. I St. 
“* Neuer Versuch tiber chronol. Standpuncte far die Apostelgeschichte, etc.’’ by 
Dr. Saskind, in Bengel’s ‘ Archiv fur die Theologie und ihre neueste Litt.” I. 
Bd. n. XII. and 14 Bd. 2d St.—Kuinoel, ‘Comm. in libros Novi Test. Historicos.’ 
Vol. 4. Proleg. in Act. Apost.—Bertholdt, ‘ Hist. krit. Einleit. in die Schriften 
des alten und neuen Test.’’ Th. V. 2d Halfte. ὃ 629seq. The limits I have as- 
signed to my work do not permit me to discuss every objection separately, when 
I differ from these learned men, though I have paid particular regard to them in 
the development of my arguments. 


2 Jos. Ant. L. XIX. c¢.7.n.3. ‘Hosta γοῦν αὐτῷ δίαιτα καὶ συνεχὴς ev τοῖς 
Ἱεροσολύμοις ἦν. 


\ 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 495 


after having governed four years under Caius and three under Claudius 
Cesar. He remarks further for the sake of being more precise: the 
third year under Claudius had already closed, τρίτον ἔτος ἤδη πεπλη- 
ρῶτο." 

The deputies from Antioch arrived at Jerusalem at the feast of the 
passover ; for the apprehension of Peter took place at the time of un- 
leavened bread (12: 3), and his execution was to take place after the 
feast (12: 4). Hence Agrippa’s death did not occur until after the pass- 
over. Now Claudius ascended the throne in January, and according 
to Josephus the third year of his reign had closed when Agrippa died. 
This passover, therefore, cannot have been the passover of the third 
year of Claudius, but must have been the one in the early part of his 
fourth year. In this way the time is very definitely fixed. In the 
third month of the fourth year of the reign of Claudius, Barnabas and 
Paul arrived at Jerusalem with the gifts of the church at Antioch; and 
sometime after Agrippa died. 

After Agrippa’s decease, the famine foretold by Agabus came to 
pass, viz. under Cuspius F'adus, who, on account of the nonage of Agrip- 
pa the younger, was appointed by the emperor to govern the dominions 
of the father, and likewise under Tiberius Alexander, who succeeded 
him in this office.” 

After this incidental remark, we must return once more to the mis- 
sion of Paul and Barnabas. It has been thought that this is referred to 
in Galat. 2: 1—15, and chronological inferences have been drawn from 
this passage, because the apostle in speaking of his visit to Jerusalem, 
commences with these words: Then fourteen years after I went up a- 
gain to Jerusalem, etc. This is an important designation of time, and 
hence it is of consequence that we should know to what fact it relates. 

I was formerly of opinion (and in this respect I had predecessors of 
great note), that Paul here refers to the mission on account of the impend- 
ing famine. But this cannot be the one intended; he must refer to the 
later one, which he undertook with Barnabas on another occasion (15: 


1—4). My reasons are the following. Paul had not on the first occa- ἐς 


sion been held in high estimation among Christians for a period of four- 
teen years (Acts 11: 25 seq. comp. Galat. 1: 21—24). At the time 
when he was sent by the church at Antioch to carry their charitable 
donations, he was merely a local teacher and assistant of Barnabas at 


Antioch (Acts 11: 22,26). His call to the office of an apostle was not | 


acknowledged till after his return from this mission (13: 2). 

In the account, however, which he gives of his visit in the Epistle to 
the Galatians, he appears as an acknowledged apostle, whose labors had 
justified his pretensions. He had already been a preacher among the 
Gentiles (Galat. 2: 2), and the evidence was convincing that the in- 
struction of the heathen, τῆς ἀκροβυστίας εὐαγγέλιον, and ἀποστολή, 
was committed to his hands; so that as apostle to the Gentiles, he rank- 


1 In the Jewish war, L. II.c. 11. n.6. he gives only theround number three; for 
Caius Cesar had not completed his fourth year. But in Antiq. L. XJX.c. 8. n. 2, 
he gives the time with all the precision stated : Τέτταρας μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ Γαΐου Kaioa— 
ρος ἐβασίλευσεν ἐνιαυτοὺς --τρεῖς δὲ ἐπιλαβὼν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος αὐτοκρατο-- 
ρίας, etc. ὁ ἂν 

2 Jos. Ant. L. ΧΧ. ο. 5. π. 3. Comp. Β.1. L. 11. 6.11. n.6. Ant. L. 11]. 6.15. 
3. rik 


n.3 


J 


496 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


ed himself with Peter, the apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2: 7,8). His ap- 

pointment to this office by divine authority (χάρις δοϑεῖσαν, was so evi- 

dent, that James, Peter and John, made a division with him, by which 
,, they retained the Jews under their own superintendence, and assigned 
“him the whole world beside (Gal. 2: 9). 

These circumstances cannot have occurred until Paul had returned 
from his long journey among the Gentiles (Acts 13:2. 15:), and was 
sent a second time with Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem, to obtain 
a decision of the dispute concerning the obligation of the Jewish observ- 
ances (15: 1—80). This mission must be the one referred to; it took 
place, he says, fourteen years later than the period when, three years 
after his conversion, he presented himself before the apostles and 
church at Jerusalem as a fellow-christian and believer (1: 18—2: 1 
seq). The intervening journey to Jerusalem with the charitable dona- 
tions from Antioch, therefore, is passed over in silence by Paul in his 
Epistle to the Galatians, as he was not writing his biography, but was 
endeavoring to show that he did not receive his Gospel from the other 
apostles, that he was nowise inferior to them in authority, and, from 
their own confession, was of equal rank and dignity with them. Now 
if this intervening journey was not to his purpose, it was superfluous to 
mention it; especially as when it took place he had but just gained 
some little estimation, and had hitherto exercised only the local office of 
teacher at Antioch. 

The fourteen years which are mentioned ended with the mission in 
regard to the Jewish observances, and began with Paul’s first appear- 
ance at Jerusalem as a Christian. Now in what year did this last oc- 
currence take place? Let us examine the circumstances under which 
it occurred, to see how far they may aid us in determining the year. 
He came to Jerusalem from Damascus (Gal. 1: 17, 18). From this lat- 
ter place he was obliged to flee, because he had exasperated the Jews 
by his preaching. He escaped with difficulty over the wallsin a basket ; 
for the Jews sought his life and were watching the gates (Acts 9: 22— 
29). Paul speaks of this incident in the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians 
also (11: 32, 33), where we are informed that the governor appointed by 
Aretas over Damascus (ὁ ἐν Ζαμασκῷ ἐθϑναργης) himself guarded the 
city, or caused it to be guarded, instigated the Jews to this violence, and 
supported them in endeavoring to carry it into effect. Now when did 
Aretas obtain the government of Damascus? 

Not long before Pompey entered these regions, on his return from 
the Mithridatic war, the inhabitants of Damascus, desirous of ridding 
themselves of an odious prince, had called Aretas, the king of Arabia 
Petra, to the government of Ceele-Syria.! Pompey had hardly arrived 
in the vicinity, when, according to the custom of the Romans, he inter- 
meddled with this business, caused Damascus to be taken by his gen- 
erals,” and the Roman arms to be carried into the interior of the terri- 
tories of Aretas. But the Romans encountered many difficulties in 
these defiles and deserts, and Aretas on his part was desirous of getting 
rid of them. Peace was therefore made.? Damascus continued under 


1 Jos. Ant. L. XTIL. c. 15. n. 2. 
2 Ant. L. XIV. c:2.n. 3. 3 Ant. L. XIV. ¢. 5. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 497 


the protection of the Romans. We find its coins from this time stamp- 
ed with the head of Augustus or Tiberius. Not long before the death 
of Tiberius, Damascus was involved in a controversy with Sidon, about 
the respective limits of the cities; both contested their claims before 
the Roman president of Syria.” Thus the city continued free ever af- 
ter, under the Roman protection. 

About this time we meet with another king of Arabia Petraa named 
Aretas, who at first was on bad terms with the Romans, so that Augus- 
tus refused for some time to acknowledge him as king.® Herod Anti- 
pas carried on a disastrous war against him, and then sought aid of the 
Romans.‘ Viiellius was commissioned to make war upon Aretas. 
While Vitellius was advancing against him, he received intelligence of 
the death of Tiberius. He immediately returned, under the plea that 
his commission had ceased. The victory over Herod, the return of 
Vitellius, the change of emperors, and the preparations already made 
for war, seem to have incited the Arabian to recover Damascus, which 
had been taken from his ancestors. Prudence required that, if possible, 
he should recover from the Romans a city which they made use of as a 
military station, and which would serve him as a protection to his do- 
minions. 

A Jewish feast was at hand, when Vitellius was marching against 
Aretas with his legions.®° This was probably the passover ; for Tiberius 
died on the 16th of March, and in less than three weeks Vitellius re- 
ceived intelligence of it, and dismissed his army to their winter quarters. | 
Now was the time for the Arabians to invest Damascus and commence 
the siege. If it be objected that Vitellius would not have permitted 
this, I reply, that he could not do otherwise. If his commission was at 
an end, as he said, in regard to a war already proclaimed, it certainly 
did not extend to a new one. 

The Nabathean king and his governor, however, did not long hold 
dominion in Damascus. So early as the second year of his reign, ‘Caius 
Cesar undertook to regulate the affairs of Asia. He gave a king to the 
Iturean Arabs, whose 1 territory was contiguous to.that of the Nabathe- 
ans, and on one side, moreover, to the district of Damascus, and who fre- 
quently disturbed the latter by their inroads. He likewise severed some 
other parts from Arabia.” In these arrangements, an important Ro- 
man garrison, like Damascus, could not be forgotten. The Arabians 
held it, therefore, at most, only from the middle of the Ist till about the 
close of the 2d year of Caius Cesar’s reign. Ifweassign Paul’s danger 
and flight to the middle of this period, it will fall in the early part of the 
second year of Caius’ reign. Beginning here, the fourteen years run 

1 Eckhel, Doctr. Numm, Vet. P. I. Vol. III. P- 330, 381. The inscriptions are 


all Greek 
2 Jos. ye L. XVILiee 6. n. 3 


3 Ant. L. XVI. ο. 9. ἡ. 4. 

4 Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. n. 1 and3. 
5 Ant. L. XVIII. c. Sigg 

6 Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. ni 


7 Dio Cass. L. LIX. p. (649. Ἔν δὲ τούτῳ, “Σοαίμῳ μὲν. τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιτυραΐων 
τῶν ᾿Δράβων, Κότυϊ δὲ τήν te” “ρμενίαν τὴν σμικροτέραν, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς 
ApoBias τινὰ... a 


498 THE HISTORICAL BUOKS 
2 q 

on tl Paul’s second mission to Jerusalem respecting the obligation of 
the Jewish observances, and terminate in the twelfth year of the reign 
of Claudius. 

Further ; Paul (Gal. 1: 15—18) reckons three years from his conver- 
sion to his flight from Damascus to Jerusalem.! These three years co- 
incide with the first of Caius and last two of Tiberius. ‘Tiberius reign- 


ed twenty-two years and a half, wanting one month. Hence the two 


years which belong to the reign of Tiberius began about the middle of 
his twenty-first year, and Paul’s conversion occurred about this period. 
a From the termination of the administration of Felix, we derive as- 
sistance in fixing the chronology of the Acts. Under Felix Paul was 


arrested at Jerusalem and carried prisoner to Cesarea (Acts 21: 27— 


23: 24). There he remained till Felix was recalled by the emperor, 
and Porcius Festus succeeded him. ‘The latter, immediately on his ac- 
cession, sent the apostle to Rome, because he had demanded to re- 
ceive his sentence from the tribunal of the emperor (25: 26:). 

Now when was Felix deposed? Josephus gives us some light on this 


point. He says at the beginning of his biography, that he was born in 


the first year of Caius Cesar. In his 26th year, he says further on, he 
was obliged to proceed to Rome on the following account. While Fe- 
lix held the government, some priests who were acquaintances of Jose- 
phus, were sent by Felix to Rome to answer charges of a trifling nature, 
and he was desirous of procuring their liberation ; etc.” 

Caius and Claudius together reigned seventeen years and eight 


months; Josephus must therefore have lived eight years and four 


months under Nero, before he went to Rome in the twenty-sixth year of 
his age. Was Felix at that time still in Judea? 

So we might perhaps imagine; but he certainly was not in his station 
when Josephus made complaint in regard to his tyranny. Such a step 
would have been extremely hazardous while he retained his authority. 
We find that it was not till after his deposition from his station that his 
accusers made their appearance against him and sought justice at 
Rome.? We must therefore place the recall of Felix earlier than the 
voyage of Josephus. ; 


1 Some are inclined to reckon these fourteen years, not from the flight from Da- 
mascus to Jerusalem, but from his conversion, thus including the three a. 
The reason they assign is, that Paul would be likely to refer every thing back to 
this event, the most important of his life. Butin the Epistle to the Galatians, 
the principal thing which he has in view is not his conversion, but the declara- 
tion that he had not received instruction in doctrine from the apostles at Jeru- 
salem, but from ahigher source. This he shows as to the period during which 
he must have received his instruction, by stating the places to which he went 
and those to which he did not go: οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα (Gal: 1: 17) ; 
ἔπειτα---ἀνῆλϑον εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα, but only for 15 days (v. 18), and ἔπειτα ἦλϑον, 
but not to Jerusalem (v.21). As the principal topic is his going or not going, 
and not his conversion, the subsequent visit (Gal. 2: 1) must refer to an earlier 
one. So much is clear from the nature of the case, without taking into account 
the word πάλιν. But πάλιν (πάλιν ἀνέβην) where it is not used antithetically, 
denotes enumeration, and also repetition, or the recurrence of something similar 
to what has preceded, It is equivalent to ἐχ δευτέρου, τὸ τρίτον, τέταρτον. 

2 Vita Josephi § eaend Basil. Ed. p. 626. 

3 Jos. Ant. L. XX.c. 8. n.9. Josephus set out on his voyage to Rome much 
later than they ; for while he was performing his business there, Poppa was 
the acknowledged wife of the emperor (Vita, c. 3), which was not the case before 
the eighth year of Nero, 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 499 


The subsequent fortunes of Felix assign his recall to the seventh year 

of Nero. The complaints brought. against him by the Jews were of so 

“weighty a character and so fully established, that he had forfeited his 

life. Nero pardoned him only at the intercession of Pallas. Pallas 

was the brother of Felix; and lost his life himself in the eighth consu- 

late under this emperor.! We must therefore assign the recall of Felix 
to the year previous to this event. 

I do not comprehend certain objections which have been made against 
this statement. In the year of Pallas’ death, P. Marius and L. Asini- 
us were consuls ( Tacit. Ann. XIV. 48), and, as Senecasays in his ad- 
dress to Nero after the death of Burrhus (c. 53), this was the eighth 
year of his reign. Burrhus was probably still alive when the accusers 
of Felix appeared against him (Jos. Ant. XX. c. 8. n. 9); and yet he 
was one of the first victims who perished this year to the great misfor- 
tune of Rome. But I do not wish to lay any stress on this. The year 
of Pallas’ death is definitely determined, and Felix must have been re- 
called before this event, i. e. in the seventh year of Nero. 


§ 83. 


Having thus specified the occurrences which carry with them defi 
nite designations of time, we must now endeavor to fill up a consider- 
able period, which is of great importance as to the chronological rela- 
tions of several of the Pauline Epistles. This period comprehends the 
years between the second mission of Paul respecting the obligations of 
the Jewish usages and his imprisonment at Jerusalem. Some of the 
events or transactions carry with them the means of determining their 
dates ; others do not. 

When Paul and Barnabas had returned from their mission to the 
Holy City, they continued to teach and to preach in Antioch (Acts 15: 
35). During this time Peter came to Antioch, where occurred the 
well-known scene between him and Paul (Gal. 2: 11 seq.). After some 
time, Paul and Barnabas projected a second voyage to Asia Minor 
(Acts 15: 36 seq.) ; but separated on account of Mark. Paul went after- 
wards with Silas. The period from the return to Antioch to the com- 
mencement of the journey to Asia Minor appears to have comprised sever- 
al months. It is probable that Paul would not have undertaken it till the 
severest portion of the winter had past. Barnabas, who purposed mere- 
ly to visit Cyprus, probably went thither in autumn, to reach the place 
before winter had set in. It is wholly immaterial, however, even if 
Paul began his journey in autumn. 

Paul set out, probably at the close of winter, for Cilicia, came to Pisid- 
ia, Phrygia, and Galatia, and obeyed the call of a vision to go to Eu- 
rope; embarked, proceeded through Macedonia; visited Athens, and 
arrived at Corinth, where he took up his abode. It was probably late 
in the year when the apostle reached this place (Acts 15: 40—18: 1). 

Here he remained a year and six months (Acts 18: 11). From 
autumn to spring are six months; from spring to spring again one 
year. Assoon as the sea was open, he embarked for Asia (Acts 18: 
18), and landed at Ephesus. He did not stay here long, however, 


1 Tacit. Annal. L. XIV. sec. 65. Dio Cass. L. LXII. p. 706,707. Joseph. loc. 


cit. 


500 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


on account of the feast which he had determined to keep at Jerusalem 
(Acts 15: 20, 21). The name of the feast is not mentioned. It was 
probably that of Pentecost ! for if he left Corinth in the spring, he could 
hardly have reached Jerusalem, by the circuitous route he took, as early 
as the passover. 

From Palestine he went to visit Antioch, where he resided χρόνον 
τινά, an indefinite time, then travelled through Galatia and Phrygia 
(Acts 18: 23), and came, in accordance with his promise, to Ephesus. 
Paul, as we shall show in treating of the Epistle to Titus, spent the win- 
ter at Nicopolis on the Issus, which may be termed the gates of Asia 
Minor. From thence he might have reached Ephesus, through Gala- 
tia and Phrygia, in a few months. 

At Ephesus he taught three months in the synagogue. He left it, 
however, and taught in the school of T'yrannus for two years (Acts 19: 
8,9, 10). He had intended to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor. 
16: 8), but was expelled some time before by an uproar (Acts 19: 21—20: 
2). He next departed to Macedonia through which country he travelled, 
exhorting and admonishing, till he reached Greece, where he abode 
three months. He then set out on his return, and, at the end of the 
passover, embarked for Asia (20: 3, 6), and was desirous, if possible, to 
reach Jerusalem so as to be there at Pentecost (20: 16). From his de- 
parture from Ephesus not long before Pentecost, to his arrival at Jeru- 
salem at Pentecost, was, therefore, rather more than a year. 

This last voyage demands particular attention, on account of the ob- 
jections which have been raised against the narrative.'! Let us then, 
accompany the apostle, in order to see what foundation there is for the 
difficulties which have been alleged. Seven days after the passover he 
left Philippi, arrived in five days at Troas, and remained there seven 
days (Acts 20: 6). From Troas he went by way of Assos, Mitylene, Chi- 
os, and Samos, to Miletus, in four days (20: 13, 14, 15); for Assos is but 
a small distance from Troas, and not a day’s voyage, as has been rep- 
resented. ‘The ship merely doubled the promontory of Lectos, and 
then took in the apostle, to proceed to Mitylene. ‘The number of days 
thus far is twenty-three. But it was the third day of unleavened bread 
from which the fifty days before Pentecost were reckoned ; consequent- 
ly three days are to be deducted from our twenty-three; so that twenty 
were past, and thirty remained before Pentecost. 

The distance from Samos to Miletus is very short compared with the 
other day’s voyages ; consequently the vessel must have arrived at Mi- 
letus in the middle of the day. We wil] not, however, lay any stress 
on this. Paul sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the 
church, gave them his exhortation on their arrival, took leave and set 
sail without delay (Acts 20: 16—38). ‘rhe time thus spent here is un- 
known ; but all could have been accomplished, beyond a doubt, in three 
days. From Miletus, Paul passed by way of Coos and Rhodes to Pata- 
ra, in three days (21: 1). At Patara he went on board another vessel. 
How much delay this caused we do not know; nor how long it was be- 
fore they reached Tyre. The voyage must have taken, however, as 


i 


1 Bertholdt, Hist. krit. Einl. in das A. und N. T. 6th Th. Note 2 to § 726. p. 
3375 seq. 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 501 


much as double the time occupied in going from Miletus to Patara. 
Luke does not begin to reckon again until he reaches the continent. 
At Tyre they stayed seven days (21: 4); thence they went to Ptolema- 
is, ἃ day’s journey, and abode there one day (21:7). On the following 
day they went to Caesarea, where they made a longer stay, ἡμέρας πλεί- 
ous, of which no definite designation is given. ‘The time which we know 
to have been taken from Tyre to Cesarea, with the one day from Ptole- 
mais to Cesarea, amounts to ten days. Their stay at Miletus, at Patara, 
the time taken in passing to Tyre, and, lastly, the ἡμέρας πλείους at 
Cesarea, are not definitely known. For these, we have twenty days 
remaining. We must deduct, however, one day for the journey from 
Cesarea to Jerusalem, and another for the reason that the apostle was 
in James’ company on the day preceding the feast. There are conse- 
quently eighteen days remaining for the unknown intervals of time. 

Now if the business at Miletus was despatched in three days, if Paul 
sailed from Patara on the next day, and the passage thence to Tyre was 
accomplished in six days, there would remain eight days for the πλείους 
ἡμέρας at Cesarea. There is no impossibility in this. That a part 
of the passage, viz. that to Patara, was quick, we know; that the second 
stage of it was fortunate beyond expectation, we know from what en- 

_sued. Paul could not otherwise have had so many days remaining to 
devote to the calls of friendship at Tyre, Ptolemais and Cesarea. 
Thus Paul reached Jerusalem, as he had desired, at the Pentecost (Acts 
20:16), and was there cast into prison. The time between his depar- 
ture from Ephesus and his imprisonment at Jerusalem, between pass- 
over and passover, was about a year. 

These were the intermediate events between Paul’s mission from Anti- 
och in respect to the Jewish observances and his seizure at Jerusalem. 
As we have seen, a part of them are accompanied with designations of 
time; and in regard toa part of them the time may be inferred with prob- 
able accuracy from circumstances. All together fill up the period of 
seven years. ‘The mission we have mentioned occurred in the twelfth 
year of Claudius ; proceeding from this point and reckoning seven years, 
we come to the fifth year of Nero. 


§ 84. 


In the 7th year of Nero Felix was deposed from his station. Paul 
had spent two years in prison under Felix (Acts 24: 27), and was con- 
sequently apprehended in the fifth year of Nero. This coincides exact- 
ly withthe reckoning in the preceding section. Festus called Paul be- 
fore him, and, after some intervening incidents, sent him to Rome as he 
had desired. 

It was late in the year; yet, on account of the variation of the Jewish 
months from the equations, till the intercalation made the year to coin- 
cide with the seasons, the time according to our reckoning cannot be 
exactly determined without tedious particularity. So much may be as- 
sumed as certain, that the fast of the seventh month fell as late as possi- 
ble (Acts 27: 9), in which case it ended on the 2d of our October. The 
apostle was compelled to remain at Malta for three months through the 
winter (28: 11), i.e. till March, when the voyage was resumed. Thence 


502 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


it continued without interruption ; the apostle arrived at Rome in the 
spring of the eighth year of Nero’s reign, remained there two whole 
years, and was released in the spring of Nero’s tenth year. Thiswas a 
fortunate release ; for it was in the autumn of this same year that Ne- 
ro’s persecution broke out. 

* * * * ca * * 


It was the apostle’s intention, as we see from some of the letters 
which he wrote from Rome, again to visit his friends in the east; and 
stillin his Epistle tothe Romans he had expressed a desire, after seeing 
Rome, to visit Spain. 

One of the most ancient christian writings assures us that the latter 
voyage really took place. He went, we are told, to the western limits 
of the earth, ἐπὶ τέρμα δύσεως, and after his return died ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμέ- 
νων. 1 do not see how any objection can be made to this statement 
of aman who was intimate with the apostle, who Jived in Rome whence 
the journey was undertaken, unless, very unreasonably, the genuine- 
ness of the work be denied; especially as he wrote this account to the 
church at Corinth, and they would naturally know something of the 
fortunes of Paul, who but a short while before had lived and taught 
among them. 

If, however, it be resolved that this work shall not be acknowledged 
as Clement’s, its opponents do not gain much advantage. They can- 
not deny that, at any rate, the Epistle was in existence in the second 
century. The author was certainly, therefore, as far as respects the 
period at which he wrote, in a situation to write from authentic tradi- 
tion. Moreover, in the second century, the church at Corinth was in 
a condition to know whether the Epistle was genuine, and to reject it 
if it was not; yet, as late as the time of Eusebius, it was read annually 
in their assemblies, and thus each year they renewed their testimony to 
its genuineness. 

Not only so, but as Eusebius states, it was read in his time in many 
other churches; and hence in the Alexandrian Codex, it is appended 
to the sacred writings by the firsthand. ‘This Ms. belongs to the: fifth 
century, and was either executed at a time when it was customary to 
read the Epistle in public, or at all events was copied from a Ms. of that 
period. 

The words ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων may be understood of the latter days 
of Nero, when Tigellinus and. Nymphidius Sabinus administered af- 
fairs at their pleasure ; also of the period after Nero’s death until Sabinus 
resigned the sword to the former, and pretended to manage affairs for 
Galba till his arrival.? In this case the interpretation accords with oth- 
er accounts, which assign the apostle’s death to Nero’s reign. At all 
events, no subsequent emperor had anything to do with it. A second 
interpretation, which supposes that by the words, ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, the 
times of Galba, Otho and Vitellius are intended, confessedly deviates 
from other historical accounts.* 


1 Clemens Rom. Ep. I. ad Corinth. sect. 5. 
2 Dionys. Corinth. apud Euseb. L. IV. c. 23. 

3 Plutarch in Galba. c. 8. 

4 The ancients do, indeed, specify Nero’s reign, but with different designa- 


OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 503 


The first mentioned voyage,' also, took place, at least in part. It 
falls in the order of time after his voyage to the west, and before his 
death, of which latter event it was the immediate occasion. Paul set 
out for the east, and went as far Corinth, where he met with Peter, 
whom he joined and accompanied to Rome. This is attested by Dio- 
nysius of Corinth: Peter and Paul, he says, met together in our city of 
Corinth, and went together to Italy, where they died martyrs to the 
cause of Christianity.2 In the eleventh year of Nero, Peter was still in 
Asia, if it be a fact that his first Epistle from Babylon was occasioned by 
the horrors of Nero’s persecution (see below, § 169). About this time 
Paul was on his voyage to the west; so that the two could not have 
met in Corinth before the twelfth year of Nero. 

We will now give a tabular view of the history of the apostle Paul, ac- 
cording to the dates we have deduced, extending from his conversion to 
his liberation from imprisonment at Rome. 


The middle of the XX Ist year of Tiberius, or the 21st—22d, corre- 
sponds with the commencement of the rca of the Chris- a.p. 
tian era. : ᾿ : . 96. 
During this year occurred Paul’ s conversion. 


The XXIIId and last year of Tiberius, and the first of Caius Cesar, 


correspond with the thirty-eighth A.D. . : : 7.95: 

The IInd year of Caius Cesar . : : ᾿ . 99. 
Paul escapes from Damascus, and goes to Jerusalem. 

The beginning of the [Vth year of Claudius Cesar. ! . 45. 
Paul's first mission from Antioch to Jerusalem. 

The XIlIth year of Claudius. ΝΣ . 53. 
Paul’s second mission from Antioch to Jerusalem. 

The XIIIth year of Claudius. 54. 


Paul travels, at the close of winter, through Asia Minor to En- 
rope, as far as Corinth; preaches here in the following autumn. 


The XVth year of Claudius. : Ν δῦ. 
Paul stays at Corinth through the winter and spring, till the next 
autumn. 


The Ist year of Nero. ; 56. 
Paul at Corinth in the winter ; ; in the spring embarks for Asia; 
arrives in Jerusalem at Pentecost ; then goes to Antioch. 


The IId year of Nero ὃ 57. 
Paul passes the winter at Nicopolis ; goes to “Ephesus; ‘teaches 
there. 


tions of time. The most precise statement which I meet with is in Jerome (Script. 
Eccles. V. Paulus). ““ Hie ergo decimo quarto Neronis anno, eodem die quo 
Petrus, Rom@ ecapite truncatus .. . anno post passionem Domini tricesimo 
septimo.”’ 

1 The author here refers to Paul’s voyage to the east to visit his friends, The 
reference is very obscure ; only “das Erste’’ is used, though so long an interval 
has elapsed since his mention of thetwo voyages to the east and west. See Pp. 
502.—Tr. 

2 In Euseb. H. E. L. II. c. 25. 


504 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 


The ΠΙᾺ year of Nero”. i ; ; : δ ν . δ8. 
Paul preaches at Ephesus. 


The IVth year of Nero. ’ : 4 : : ones 
Paul is at Ephesus and in Asia till Pentecost ; embarks for Ma- 

cedonia. 

The Vth year of Nero : : ‘ . : 68. 
Paul winters in Achaia; returns to Jerusalem at Pentecost ; is 

imprisoned. 

The VIth year of Nero. : : : ; f : » dale 
Paul in bonds at Cesarea. 

The VIIth year of Nero . ‘ 2 : i : 62. 

_ Paul in bonds at Cesarea; in autumn issent to Rome. 

The VIIIth year of Nero : 4 ‘ 2 63. 
Paul arrives at Rome in the spring; is in bonds there. 

TheIXth yearof Nero . . ς- ΝΣ πὸ 
Paul is in bonds at Rome. 

The Xth year of Nero : . : : : Α : ap θὅ. 


Paul is liberated in the spring. 


A few words in explanation of this table. Inthe XVth year of the 
reign of Tiberius, when the baptism of Jesus took place, he was about 
thirty years of age (Luke 3: 23, auel ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος). This 
designation of time I assume to be correct without further investigation ; 
for a proper discussion of the point would require a separate work. 
The baptism occurred about fifty or sixty days before the first passover, 
forty of which were taken up by the abode in the desert, and the remain- 
der by the earlier occurrences at Bethany and in Galilee (John 1: 29— 
2: 13). These fifty or sixty days before the passover must have com- 
menced in the month of February. This month, however, fell about 
the middle of the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. For Augustus, 
from whose death the accession of Tiberius must he reckoned, died on 
the nineteenth of August.!. From the middle of February to the mid- 
dle of August are six months, and thus six months more are wanting to 
complete the year. 

Tiberius died in the twenty-third year of his detested reign, on 
the sixteenth of March.? If the thirtieth year of Jesus began in the 
middle of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, i.e. in February, the thirty- 
eighth year of the Christian era must have begun in the middle of the 
twenty-third. Since, as we have before said, Tiberius died in March, 
he lived but one month in this thirty-eighth year A.D. This year, 


1 Dio Cassius. L. LVI. p. 590. Wechel. says: τῇ ἐννέα καὶ δεκάτη tot Av- 
yovorov. Sueton. In Aug. c. 100. says the same, according to the Roman way of 
reckoning ‘ decima quarta Kal. Septembris.” 

2 Tacit. L. VI. Ann. c. 50. Sueton. Tiber. c. 73. Eutrop. c. 11. agree as to the 
date XVII. Kal. April. ; but Dio Cass. read by mistake VII. Kal. for XVII. Kal. 
τῇ ἕκτῃ καὶ δἰκοστῇ TOD Μαρτίου ἡμέρᾳ, L. 58. fin. The statement of Josephus 
(B. J. Z II. c.9. n.5), is very precise: ἔτη δυο πρὸς εἴκοσι καὶ τρεῖς ἡμέρας Em 
μησὶν ἕξ. ' 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 505 


therefore, continued into the first of Caius Cesar, and the second of his 
reign was the thirty-ninth of the Christian era. 

Caius did not complete the fourth year of his reign; he ascended the 
throne in March, and died on the twenty-fourth of January.' This, 
however, makes but little difference as to the year of the Christian era, 
which continues on uniformly under his successor. 

Claudius now took the throne and held it for thirteen years, anda 
part of the fourteenth, till the middle of October.” The year of Nero’s 
reign, therefore, which begins at that time, begins three months and 
some days earlier than the Christian year. 


x 


CHAPTER II. 


THE APOSTLE PAUL’S WRITINGS. 


§ 85, 


Saul, >:Nw , or Paul, which latter name he took either because he 
was going among Greeks, or in memory of the first illustrious person 
who gave him a favorable reception, and was converted by his means,? 
viz. Sergius Paulus, the Proconsul of Cyprus (for the name occurs first 
on this occasion, Acts 13: 9), was a Roman citizen, born at Tarsus in 
Cilicia, a city which in the days of Strabo* stood by the side of Athens 
and Alexandria, as respected the sciences and arts. 

In conformity with the ancient Jewish proverb, ‘‘ He who does not 


teach his son some trade, brings him up to steal,’ he learned the trade 
of a manufacturer of tent-cloth.? 


1 Sueton.in Cai. ο. 58. ** Nono Kal. Febr.”” and c. 59. “ Imperavit triennio, 
et decem mensibus, diebus octo.”” Josephus, B. J. L. Il. c. 11. probably con- 
founded diebus octo with μῆνας ὀκτώ. 

2 Sueton. Claud. c. 45. “ Excessit ΠΠΠ. Idus Octobris.” Comp. Tacit. Ann. 
XII. 69. Dio, L, LXI. cap. penult. gives the date correctly : μετηλλαξε τῇ τριτῃ 
καὶ δεκάτῃ Tov οκτωβρίου. 

3 Hieronym. in Catal. ν. Paulus: “ Quumque primuin ad predicationem ejus 
Sergius Paulus, proconsul Cypri, credidisset, ab eo, quod eum Christi fidei sub- 


jugarat, sortitus est nomen Paulus.”’ Origen. Pref. in Ep. ad Rom. T. IV. p. 
460. Ed. Ruei. 


4 Strabo, Geog. L. XIV. p. 463. Ed. Casaub. 1587. fol. 


5 Σκηνοποιός, Acts 18: 3. Michaelis infers from this expression that he was a 
mechanist, on the ground that, according to Pollux, σκηνοποιός was equivalent to 
μηχανοποιός in the old comedy: τοὺς δὲ μηχανοποιοὺς καὶ σκηνοποιοὺς ἡ παλαιὰ 
κωμῳδία ὠνόμαξ ε (Ed. Grynwi, Col. 415). But the learned man has misunder- 
stood this author, He is speaking here only of the theatre and its machines ; 
the expression, ἢ παλαιὰ κωμῳδία, is used merely to denote the technical lan- 
guage of the actors. Inthis way, in a passage precisely parallel, the expression 


506 ‘PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


He very early showed uncommon asperity of character, and the most 
obdurate intolerance. These traits he exhibited while but a youth, at 
the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7: 58. 8: 1, 2,3). 

Fis disposition developed itself without restraint, and even under 
public approbation, in wanton cruelty. He became furious, entered 
into houses to search for Christians, dragged forth men and women, 
and committed them to prison (8: t—4). But his sphere of operations 
soon appeared to him too contracted. Jerusalem was not large enough 
to satisfy his sanguinary disposition. He presented himself before the 
Sanhedrim, and desired permission to persecute the Christians at Da- 
mascus, and on the road thither, and with inhuman satisfaction he 
cast persons of every age and of both sexes mto prison (1141, 2. 22: 
4 seq). 

This extremely violent man, with sach terrible qualities of mind, 
whose strong ambition made him very bold and enterprising, would 
have become a perfect John of Gischala, a blood-thirsty zealot (éu- 
πνέων ἀπειλῆς zai φόνου, Acts 9: 1), had not an unexpected event 
changed his whole character. 


§ 86. ᾿ 


The harsh bent of his mind inclined him to the tenéts of the Phari- 
sees, who had all the recommendation of austerity, and were the domi- 
nant party among the Jews. 

His literary education he received in part from Gamaliel, a teacher ip 
great estimation at that time (Acts 22: 3). By him he was instructed’ 
in the Jewish laws and traditions, natgcxag παραδόσεις. His talents 


ἡ νέα and ἡ ἀρχαία κωμῳδία are used : 7) δὲ νέα κωμῳδία καὶ προσωποποιὸν εἴρη- 
κεν. ὃν ν) ἀρχαία σκευοποιόν ἐκάλει (Col. 91. Comp. Schol. minor. in Suphocl. Ajac. 
Ed. Branck. ad v. 8). For the machinery which presented to view the deus ex 
machind was connected with the scenery and was a part of it, as is stated by the 
same Lexicographer, Περὶ μέρων ϑεάτρου (Col. 229). Both, therefore, might be 
the work of the same artist; whence he was called indiscriminately sometimes the 
machine-maker and sometimes the scene-maker, as according to the second pas- 
sage the artist was called at one time the mask-maker, and at another the maker 
of all the decorations ete. used in the theatre. The manufacture of theatrical 
machinery was certainly not Paul’s business. The fathers called him σχυτοτύ-- 
μος and σκηνοῤῥάφος, manufacturer of skin-tents (Suicer. Thesaur. Philol. p. 982). 
It would seem that the nature of the military tents led them to suppose him a 
worker in leather ; for these were made of the skins of animals, whence the ex- 
pression among the ancients: exercitum sub pellibus habere, pellibus continere 
militem. The native country of the apostle affords us most information in re- 
gard to his business. It produced very shaggy and rough-haired goats ; whence 
Kihizvog τρἄγος was a proverbial expression to denote one who was extremely de- 
ficient in good manners. From the hair of these animals the inhabitants 
of Cilicia manufactured a thick, coarse cloth, which was hence called cilicium, 
cilicia, κελίκεον - Kidinos τράγος, ὃ δασὺς, τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἐν Κιλικίᾳ γίνονται τρά-- 
γοι, ὅϑεν καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν τριχῶν ουντιϑεμένα χκιλίχια καλοῖψνται (Suidas, Comp. 
Hesych, and Salmas. in Solinum. p. 347). As to its use In war and in navigation, 
see Veget. De re militari, L. 1V. c. 6. and Servius in Georg. L. ME. ν..119...1. 
was used, in particular, by the Nomades in Syria and on the Euphrates, for herds- 
men’s tents. Plin. H. Nat. &. VI. ο, 23. τ Nomades, infestoresque Chaldeo- 
rum scenite ... . et ipsi vagi,seda tabernaculis cognominati, que eilictts me- 
tantur, ubi libuit.’’ Paul’s business was the manufacture of this article of nation- 
al industry. He was a manufacturer of tent-cloth. 


4 
PAUL’S EPISTLES. 507 


promised a capable and persevering scholar, and the result justified the 
expectation. He understood all the modes of interpreting the bible 
which were then current, viz. allegory, typology, accommodation, and tra- v 
dition. In Greek literature, too, he was far from being a novice (Acts 
17: 28. 1 Cor. 15: 33. Tit. 1: 12). 

Nor had nature denied him the external gifts which are so essential to 
eloquence, although he speaks of them with great modesty. At Lystra 
he was taken for the God of oratory. 


§ 87. 


This character, capable of great things, but not master of itself from 
the predominance of feeling, was an extreme in human nature, and was 
of course developed in extremes. His religion was a destructive zeal ; 
his anger, ferocity; his fury demanded victims. So boisterous and un- 
governable a disposition did not qualify him, in a psychological point of 
view, to be achristian, or even a philanthropist; least of all to bea 
meekly-suffering man. Yet all this he was on his conversion to Chris- 
tianity, and his violent passions were softened down toa well-regulated 8 
and noble character. 

Once hasty and passionate, now only courageous and determined ; 
once violent, now energetic and enterprising : once vehemently oppos- 
ing every thing which stood in his way, now only persevering ; once » + 
savage and gloomy, now only serious; once cruel, now only strict; * 
once a harsh zealot, now pious; once unrelenting, unsusceptible of 
sympathy and commiscration, now himself bathed in tears, which for- 
merly he had seen in others unmoved. Formerly the friend of no one, 
now the brother of all mankind, philanthropic, compassionate, sympa- 
thetic ; yet never weak, always great, manly and noble, even in the midst 
of sorrow and trouble. Thus he appears on occasion of his affecting 
departure from Miletus (Acts 29:); it is like the farewell of Moses, or 
the resignation of Samuel, tender and moving, full of selfrespect, dig- 
nified, though painful. 

Thus it was not the case merely that his mind received another bis 
and his ever-restless fervor was directed to a new object; but the pro- 
pensities and passions of his hitherto unrestrained nature were brought 
into perfect symmetry ; so that his vast powers were harmoniously ad- 
justed to a new mental character. The loftiness of this character arises 
from its perfect unity. 

Now if, as is clear, this was the result of his conversion, every one ἡ Ἄν. 
may judge for himself whether such ἃ change be a mark of ἃ disordered tL 
brain, or shows that with more than ordinary qualities of mind he care yl : 
fully guided his conduct by regular principles. We can then, too, read- 4... Cows 
ily answer the inquiry, How far his interest in the Christian cause was 4 f. 
real, firmly rooted in his mind and conscience? 


§ 88. 


His writings are a faithful expression of the character we have. de- 
scribed. They evince an independent mind, whose conceptions and 
ideas, as well as his mode of communicating and stating them, were 


a 


oY / 


508 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


peculiarly his own. Even the same thought, occurring at different 
times in his writings, always receives a new turn, has each time some- 
thing novel in its aspect. In the matter and the style we discover a 
brisk, active mind, possessed of a well-digested store of ideas, and a re- 
markable felicity of communication. 

So, too, in regard to the tone of his writings. Sternness, manly 
earnestness, and strong feeling, alternate with mildness, kindness, and 
sympathy ; and the transitions are such as would naturally take place 
in the breast of a man deeply interested in his subject, of a noble and 
intelligent character. He warns, rebukes, and then consoles; he as- 
sails with vigour, presses with impetuosity, then speaks with evident 


kindness of heart, exhibits his ardent desire for the welfare of others, 


his forbearance, his dread of afflicting any. All is just as the subject, 
the time, the character of those whom he writes, and other circumstan- 
ces, demand. 

We find every where importunate language, an earnest and anima- 
ted manner. Rom. 1: 26—32 isa comprehensive and powerful de- 
scription of character. His antitheses (Rom. 2: 21—24. 2 Cor. 4: 8— 


22-2412 6: 9--11. 11: 22 ), his enumerations (1 Cor. 13: 4—10. 2 Cor. 


“; 6: 4- 7 2 Tim. 3: 1—5. Ephes. 4: 4—7. 5: 3—6), his climaxes (Rom. 
24—$0 8:29, 30. Tit. 3: 3. 4), his questions, exclamations, and comparisons, 


give animation to his style, often to a very striking degree. The simile 
in 1 Cor. 12: 14 seq. resembles that of Menenius Agrippa, and is even 
more elegant and expressive. 

Still he bestowed little pains on the correction of his style. His 
thoughts and feelings remained as they were thrown off from his pen. 
We see no trace of the file, or of that artist-like care with which the an- 
cients were wont to give the finishing touch totheir productions. Hence 
his phraseology is frequently negligent, his construction incomplete, or 
even obscure, full of parentheses, and these sometimes very long. See 


1 Tim, 1:4, from ϑεοῦ τηὶν ἐν τιίστει tov. 18, ταύτην τὴν παραγγδλίαν ; 


2 Cor. 8:14--18..4: 7—9.\ Ephes. 2: 1--- ὅ. Rom. 2: 13—16. 12: 4—15, 
etc. etc. ; 


§ 89. 


Notwithstanding these rhetorical faults, 1 regard Paul as a master of 
eloquence, and should even like to compare him in this respect with 
celebrated men of ancient times, 6. g. with Isocrates, whose letiers to 
Demonicus, and some of those to Nicocles, bear considerable resem- 
blance to Paul’s in design and purport. I said in respect to eloquence ; 
for, though the Jewish-Greek dialect of the apostle be far inferior to 
the Attic euphony of Isocrates, he exhibits an eloquence independent 
of art, which was the result of his talents and character, of conviction, 
interest in his subjects, and deep impressions of their nature and im- 
portance, and which, from the influence of these causes, reached a 
degree of grandeur scarcely ever attained by art. I cannot, however, 
here pursue this parallel, and willingly leave every reader to his own 
judgment in regard to it; but I must not omit to notice the opinion of 
a critic whose impartiality and ability give him claims to especial con- 
sideration. 


“ 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 509 


I mean Dionysius Longinus, who gives his estimate of the apostle’s 
eloquence in the following passage. “The following men are the 
boast of all eloquence and of Grecian genius, viz. Demosthenes, Lys- 
ias, Auschines, Hyperides, Iseus, Dinarchus, or Demosthenes Crithi- 
nus, Isocrates, and Antiphon ; to whom may be added Paul of Tarsus, 
who was the first, within my knowledge, that did not make use of dem- 
onstration.” 

I am aware that the latter part of this passage has been regarded as 
suspicious by illustrious critics, by Fabricius and Ruhnken;! but 1 
think something further may be urged with propriety in its favor, par- 
ticularly as these two learned men rejected it rather from mere critical 
suspicion than on good grounds. 

We must first examine the use of terms in the passage. Paul is said 
to have made use of the δόγματος ἀναποδείχτου. Longinus distin- 
guished in rhetoric the anodsexrexov ἴτοιη τῷ κατὰ φαντασίαν ἐκ- 
πληκτικῶ, the genus demonstrativum from that which appealed merely to 
the passions.2. In speaking, therefore, of rhetorical matters, as in this 
passage, δόγμα cvanodsextoy means a style rather ofa stirring than an 
argumentative nature.? Moreover, the expression προΐσιασϑαι δόγμα- 
τος, which is unusual, is one elsewhere employed by Longinus. It oc- 
curred in his work Περὶ τέλους, written against Plotinus and Amelius, 
a fragment of which has been preserved by Porphyry: οὐχ ὀλίγοι τῶν 
ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων προέστησαν. 

The passage, too, sounds very naturally in the mouth of a heathen 
philosopher. Paul seemed to the critic rather to persuade than to 
demonstrate. Nor was this without reason; for the apostle either 
assumes certain doctrines as well known, and then connects others with 
them, or makes use of passages from the Old Testament, the argumen- 


1 Fabric. Biblioth. αὐτο. L. IV. p. 445. Ed. Hamb. Ruhnkenius in Not. ad 
Rutil. Lupui De figur. sentent. p. 88. [cite the passage in Longinus accord- 
ing to the amendment of Ruhnken. In the usual editions it occupies the first 
place among the fragments. Kogwvis δ᾽ ἔστω λόγου παντὸς καὶ φρονήματος 
“Ἑλληνικοῦ Φημοσϑένης, Avoiag, Αἰσχίνης, “Ὑπερίδης», ᾿Ισαῖος, “ευνάρχος, 4y- 
μοσϑένης 6 κρίϑινος, ᾿Ισοκράτης, ᾿Αντίφων meds τούτοις Π]αὔλος ὁ Ταρσεὺς, 
ὅντινα καὶ πρῶτον φημὶ προϊστάμενον δύγματον ἀναποδείκτου. It is well known 
that Dinarchus was facetiously called “ημοσϑένης κρύϑενος and ἄγριος; It ought 
therefore to be made apparent that these words are only a surname of Dinar- 
chus, lest the reader should suppose two different persons were meant. This is 
not done in Ruhnken’samendment. Before the time of Ruhnken, the text even 
contained the following awkward blunder. The name of lsocrates was inserted 
between Dinarchus and Demosthenes Crithinus: Ζεινάρχος» ᾿Ισοχράτης, As- 
μοσϑένης κρίϑινος. Perhaps the text once was: Δεινάρχος, ἴσως κατ ἐπίκλην 
“ημοσϑένης ὁ κρίϑινος, ᾿Ισοχράτης. The works after “Ζεινάρχος were su pposed to 
be the name ᾿Ισοκράτης. This was therefore expunged aiter χρέϑενος, as hav- 
ing occurred before ; and thus originated the reading we have mentioned. 

2 Περὶ vy. XV. n. 11. 

3 In the language of the learned of ancient times, τὸ ἀναπόδεικτον is gener- 
ally that which is not sustained by argument, or ἃ position taken for granted, 
κατὰ συγχώρησιν λαμβανόμενον, for the parpose of drawing inferences from it 
(Sextus Empir. Pyrrhon. ,Hypoth. L. Il. ¢. 6. n. 54, and L. Ii. 6.15: Ὁ. 108}: 
Morus assumes this expression to be an interpolation, when he attempts te ex- 
plain it from the usage of christian writers (Lib, animady. in Longin. p: 54). 


! Longin. ex edit. Mort. p. 277 and 264. 


2 ne df, 


& 


510 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


tative force of which the heathen writer did not perceive, and which he 
must therefore have regarded as mere erudition and literary embellish- 
ment. In his situation, therefore, he could not make a more correct 
observation in regard to Paul, than that he was the first who made use 
of persuasion and pathos rather than argument. 

The internal grounds of judgment, then, the phraseology and’ the 
sentiment, are so far from being in favor of the supposed interpolation, 
that they rather point to our author. So likewise with the external ev- 
idence. ‘ 

Dionysius Longinus was of the sect of the New Platonists, who were 
pretty well acquainted with the Christian Scriptures.” Porphyry, his 


.,86 pupil, in his fifteen books against the Christians, does not merely attack 


the general purport of the New Testament, but selects and analyzes 
particular passages. Amelius, a contemporary of Longinus, endeavored 
to prove that John’s Gospel contained the Platonic doctrine in regard to 
the Logos.' 

Inthe time of Longinus the Christians had public religious worship 
in the dominions of his pupil and friend, Zenobia, and Paul of Samo- 
sata, Bishop of Antioch, was known and favored at her court, so that 
the critic must have been intimately acquainted with him. There is 
even strong probability® that they were natives of the same city, Sam- 
osata, and perhaps acquainted with each other in early life; but, inde- 
pendently of this circumstance, the situation of the philosopher makes 
it clear that he must have had information respecting the christian scrip- 
tures. 

Lastly, in his work on the Sublime (IX. 10), he makes honorable men- 
tion of the Mosaic book of Genesis. If the books of the Jews attracted 
his attention, those of the Christians could hardly escape his curiosity ; 
and considering his impartial estimate of the former, we ought not to 
be surprised at the opinion of so fair a critic respecting the Apostle Paul, 


§ 90. 


Some will now expect me to specify the peculiarities of Paul’s system: 
of doctrine, and to acquaint them with the spirit of his writings; and 
others who do not go so far as this, willexpect me to state the interme-. 
diate ideas by which he connected his tenets and united them into one 
complete system. Both, however, make requisitions which, if nothing 
else could be objected against them, are more easily made than met. 
I am apprehensive that as yet we are not enabled to distinguish properly 
between the scaffolding and the structure itself. 

That, however, which is particularly observable in Paul, and which is 
the key to all his actions, is the remarkable impression which the idea 


» of an universal religion had made on his mind. This sublime idea of re- 


taining all that was excellent and divine in the religious opinions of a dis- 
owned and perishing people, and of perpetuating it in a system which 
not only far surpassed every thing of the time, but would through the 


1 Euseb. Prep. Evang. L. XI. Theodoret. De curand. Gree: aff. L. If.—Cyrill. 
Contra Julian. L. 11. 

2 Hudson, Pref. in Longin. Oxon. 1718, proves from an ancient inscription 
that the family of Longinus resided at Samosata. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 51] 


developments made of it in succeeding ages, satisfy all the wants of 
posterity, bearing this infallible mark of its truth, that it was adapted to 

all men and all times—this idea of founding a religion for the world, 
never penetrated any mind so deeply, never lighted up so much energy, 
or prompted such persevering effort. 

In this matter he was no man’s disciple ; he received his spirit di- 
rectly from his Master; a divine spark inflamed him. It was this 
which would not permit him to stay in Palestine or Syria; which irre- 
sistibly urged him to go to foreign lands. Judea and its vicinity were 
the province of his companions; but his mission was among the Gen- 
tiles; the whole heathen world was allotted to him. Hence he com- 
menced his labors in the various countries of Asia Minor; and when 
even these limits became too narrow for him, he went with the same 
confidence to Europe, among other nations, institutions, customs and 
opinions ; and here finally, with the same restless ardor, he extended 
his plans even to the pillars of Hercules. 

Hence it was, that, though he carefully accommodated himself to the 
Jewish mode of teaching, he still yielded nothing essential, disapproved 
the pliableness of Peter, and did not manifest the same forbearance as 
James ; granting no indulgence to old attachment to Judaism, whenever 
opinions and institutions were in question which excluded other na- 
tions or individuals, and were not suited to all people and all times. 
Hence he violently attacked the Jewish constitution, and was proclaim- 
ed an enemy of Moses and the law, so that his life was put in jeopardy. 
It was this idea which gave a peculiar character to his whole course, and 
which pervades his writings throughout. In these writings we very 
frequently find his peculiar views on this subject concisely intimated. 

Thus did Paul prepare the way for the destruction of two religions, 
that of his ancestors and that of the heathen. How well-timed his ef- 
forts were, it is not our business at present to inquire. We will set 
aside the question whether both religions were not still of some utility at 
that period. Poets may regret that the poetical religion of the Greeks, 
and that of the Romans, which was deeply indebted to the former, 
should have sunk in the lapjof time with all their agreeable fictions ; but 
it was in vain to think of guiding by the esthetic feeling an age which 
was no longer Platonic, and subsequent events, which gradually devel- 
oped themselves, the civilization of barbarous nations that had been 
molested by the Roman arms, required something different from Gre- 
cian fables, which under another than an Ionic or Attic sky could neither 
be appreciated nor comprehended. 

But why was Paul’s mode of teaching so thoroughly Jewish? Why 
did he envelop his discourse to such a degree in the learning of Pales- 
tine, while proclaiming an universal religion? His youthful education, 
the custom of the time, and the people before him, determined him to 
this mode of procedure. ἔπ every clime which he visited, he had to do 
first and foremost with Jews. Had he possessed what was termed by 
Socrates his obstetric art, the art of drawing forth to light the thoughts 
of the humana mind from its inmost recesses; had he possessed the 
splendid style of Plato, or, considering him as an orator, the art of an 
hundred rhetoricians, he would hardly have gained a single Jew by it. 
With all this profane eloquence, wise men were but fools in the syna- 


eS 


et 


Ως τῶν. 


512 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


gogue. The Jews required in religious matters the language of reli- 
gion, the learning, phraseology, turns of expression and images pecu- 
liar to their nation. 

The fact that Paul met with heathen, likewise, in the synagogues of 
the Jews, was one of those circumstances of the time which were of 
great advantage to Christianity ; for there was no other place where 
he could have appeared before them in the character of teacher. In 
the temples nothing was attended to but sacrifices; in the forum 
nothing but laws and lawsuits; and it can be ascribed only to the pecu- 
liar regulations of the city of Athens that he wrote and taught in public 
there. It may be said that perhaps it was only dissatisfaction with 
the established religion, or a propensity to superstition, which led these 
heathen to the synagogues. At all events, however, a great number of 
heathen were sincerely addicted to Judaism, and frequented the Sab- 
bath assemblies.! In this way Christianity came to their ears, and then 
spread to their fellow-countrymen. They were termed osPomeves, and 
metuentes, of whom Paul found many at Thessalonica, in particular. 

But these, too, having imbibed the religious notions of the Jews, had 
during initiation become accustomed to their technical language and 
mode of teaching. Paul was, therefore, obliged to begin where others 
had left off, and to avail himself of what had been previously accom- 
plished. 


§ 91. 
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Thessalonica, the capital of what, according to the division of Aumilius 
Paulus, was the second Macedonian district,? and the largest city in the 
whole country,® was eventually the residence of the Roman Pretor. It 
was very populous,’ and also sufficiently wealthy to infuse courage into 


1 Josephus, B. J. L. If. c. 18. n. 2. and ο. 20. n. 2. In Spon’s “ Voyage d’Ita- 
lie, de Dalmatie, de Gréce et du Levant,’ Tom. I. p. 398. Ed. 1679, there is an 
inscription from Thyatira, by which it appears that an inhabitant of that place 
even provided for his burial ina garden near a synagogue: ®ABIOS ΖΟΣΙ- 
MOS KATASKEVAS AS LSOPON EGETO ENT ΤΌΠΟΥ KAOAPOY 
ONTOS ΠΡῸ THS TOAEOS ΠΡΟΣ ΤῺ] SAMBAOEIQ’ EN TRI 
XAAAAIOY HEPIBOASI... A pertinent inscription which was found 
at Pola in Istria, iscontained in Gruter’s Thes. Inscript. p. 271. n. 11. AUR. SO- 
TER. ET AUR. STEPHANUS AUR.SOTERIAE MATRI PIENTISS. RELI- 
GIONI JUDAICAE METUENTI. There is a similar one in Apianus, Inscript. 
sacros, vetust. p. 358. I do not know whether it is contained in Gruter or not, 
as his work is not at hand. RELIGIONI JUDAICAE METUENTI F. P. 
AELIUS PRISCILIANUS ET AELIA CHRESTE VIVI SIBI POSUE- 
RUNT .... We shall say more of this subject in treating of the Epistle to the 
Romans. We will merely subjoin here aremarkable passage from Dio Cassius : 
Ἢ δὲ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη͵ (Ιουδαῖος) ἐκείνοις μὲν οὐκ οἶδα πόϑεν ἤρξατο γενέσϑαι. 
Φέρει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς αλλοις ἀνθρώπους, ὅσοι τὰ νόμιμα αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἀλλοεϑνεῖς 
ὄντες, ζηλοῦσι. κι τ... 1,.. XXXVII. p. 97. Ed. Wechel. 1606. 


2 Livius, L. XLV. 29. 
3 Lucian, Lucius sive asinus. Πόλις τῶν ἕν Maxsdovig μεγίστη. 
4 Strabo Geogr. L. VII. Madore τῶν ἄλλων εὐανδροῦσα. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 513 


the armies of Brutus and Cassius, which were promised the pillage of it 
as the reward of victory.! Even at the present day it is an important 
commercial city, and contains very many Jews. 

Little of an honorable nature is known of the state of morals in this 
city. The females, particularly, could claim little credit on the score of 
modest, retiring demeanor, which is the greatest charm of the sex; this 
virtue was in so low estimation generally i in this city, that the place was 
selected as the scene of the wanton fancies of the satirist.” 

Soon after his first entrance into Europe, Paul made trial here of the 
doctrines of Christianity. He entered the synagogue, the only place 
where he, as a stranger, could address the people on the subject of religion 
and morality. He there spoke for three Sabbaths concerning the Christ, 
or Messiah, and proved from the Scriptures that he must needs have suf- 
fered, and ‘have risen from the dead, and that Jesus was this Messiah 
(Acts {7: 2—9). ‘The Jews were not pleased with these doctrines ; but 
he had the consolation of gaining approbation and adherents among the 
Gentiles. For of these there were many. metuentes, who visited the 
synagogue and had been initiated into Judaism, but had not the precon- 
ceived opinions and national waywardness of the Jews to prevent them 
from appreciating a better system. 

These religious Gentiles adhered to the apostle, and believed, both 
men and women, in great numbers. The Jews did not remain indif- 
ferent at this loss; their jealousy was excited. They created an up- 
roar, drove Paul and Silas from the city, and, after they had departed, 
wreaked all their fury on those who had embraced the apostle’s doc- 
trines. 

The new converts had hardly enjoyed the most simple instruction, 
when Paul was compelled to betake himself to flight. Much, therefore, 
must have continued obscure to them, and respecting many parts of his 
preaching doubts must have arisen which there was no one to solve. 
From the outline of his preaching presented by Luke (Acts 17: 3—7), 
it appears that he occupied himself wholly with a discussion of the Mes- 
sianic dignity of Jesus, which of course included his kingly office and his 
judicial authority over the world. But, according to Luke’s account, 
on our own resurrection, as well as on many other subjects, he did not 
enlarge. It is plain, too, from what follows, that Paul took this ancient 
Jewish tenet for granted, or else did not touch upon it. 

The expectation of a final judgment, to be conducted by the Messiah, 
was pleasing to many, because they hoped that the opponents of the 
doctrines which they professed, would soon be put to shame and the 
triumph of Christianity in the sight of all would procure them justice (2 
Thess. 1: 6, 7). Circumstances gave additional liveliness to these 
hopes. ‘They had severe persecutions to endure from the exasperated 
zealots of thelaw ; they therefore longed the more ardently for the day 
of their glorification, and interpreted the preaching of the apostle ac- 
cording to their wishes, as signifying the speedy coming of our Lord. 

Now, as they ,had received no information in regard to the resurrec- 
tion, some of them com not pelp fearing tha if this aay should be long 


Ι 1 Appian, De bell. Ἔξ. L. AE 118. 
2 Lucian, Lucius sive asinus, n. 50. 51. 52. T. VI. Bipont. p. 191. 
ἘΣ 


514 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


delayed, they would not enjoy the happiness of seeing it and participa- 
ting in the glorious event (1 ‘Thess. 4: 18). 

Others, however, were alarmed by the consideration that such a judg- 
ment would unveil their faults and strictly punish their failings; for 
many had not succeeded in divesting themselves of their old habits, es- 
pecially those of lasciviousness and idleness. 


§ 92. 


The apostle was, as we have said, driven from Thessalonica, and 
went to Berea, an adjacent place (Acts 17: 10), where he was received 
with joy, but was soon discovered and persecuted anew by the Jews of 
Thessalonica. He fled thence also, leaving behind, however, Silas and 
Timotheus (Acts 17: 14). 'Timotheus, by the apostle’s command, vis- 
ited the Thessalonians once more from Berea (1 Thess. 9: 1, 2,5), and 
Paul went to Athens, where he waited for his companions whom he had 
left behind (Acts 17: 15, 16). He was at Corinth, however, when they 
joined him (Acts 18: 5). 

There Paul learned from them the condition and concerns of the 
church at Thessalonica, and formed the resolution of writing to en- 
courage and console it. Hence, while Timotheus and Silvanus were 
with him (1 Thess. 1: 2), as soon as 'imotheus had joined him, «gze 
ἐλθόντος Τιμοϑέου (1 Thess. 8: 6), consequently in the early part 
of his abode at Corinth, he wrote an epistle to them, the first of all 
his Epistles, according to the investigations made above in regard to the 
chronology of the Acts. It was therefore written in the thirteenth year 
of Claudius. 


§ 93. 


The contents are as follows: I commend your faith and constancy 
in suffering; in this you resemble me. I preached to you under perse- 
cution, without any benefit to myself, for your good (—2: 17). Ihave 
often longed after you, and I sent Timotheus in my stead to comfort you. 
He brought me joyful tidings. May God vouchsafe you strength to do 
right (—4:)!_ Imust warn you, however, to flee fornication ; ye have 
no need that I exhort you to beneficence; but let every one labor, being 
a burden to no one (—4: 13). Be not concerned that you may not live 
to see the coming of our Lord. Our hopes are not, like those of the 
heathen, bounded by this life ; the dead will rise again to take part in 
Christ’s coming. But no man knows the time of this event; therefore 
be ye always ready. 


§ 94. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


While they were anxiously looking for the coming of our Lord, they 
received the apostle’s first Epistle. As he reproved some of their vices 
in it, the consciences of many made them less desirous, and even fearful, 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 515 


of our Lord’s coming. Soon after another epistle appeared, purporting 
to come from the apostle, which announced that our Lord’s appearance 
was at hand; this only was needed to make them utterly miserable (2 
Thess. 2: 2). Itis true that this epistle was fictitious; but it had its 
full effect. It was probably written by one in their midst; for the au- 
thor was acquainted with their condition, expectations, fears and hopes. 
It was, therefore, probably written rather with the desire of hastening 
an amendment in some of them, than with any evil intentions. 

Paul soon learned this, and the consternation of the Thessalonians ; 
he could not suffer them to continue longer in so wretched a condition. 
He was still at Corinth when in these circumstances he wrote his 
second Epistle to them ; for Timotheus and Silas were yet with him (2 
Thess. 1: 1. Acts 18: 5). Now these two men were deprived of his soci- 
ety at his departure from Corinth (Acts 18: 18), and it is not till a great 
while after, that we find the first of them again in his company, and the 
other, Silas, never again appears in it (19: 22). 

It was, therefore, at Corinth, that he learned of this occurrence and 
the consternation of the Thessalonian Church; and from this city he 
wrote his second Epistle for their consolation, in the fourteenth year of 
Claudius. 


§ 95. 


I thank God, he writes, that your faith and constancy under persecu- 
tion increase. Jesus will entirely requite you and your enemies at the 
day of his coming (—2:). Be not terrified at anything, not even by an 
epistle in my name asthough the Lord were at hand. Idolatry must 
reach her highest pitch of arrogance before the punishment comes (2: 
12). But we, brethren, thank God that he has appointed us unto glo- 
ry; besteadfast in the faith ; pray for God’s assistance (—3: 6). There 
are, however, disorderly persons among you, particularly indolent per- 
sons ; separate yourselves from them, if they will not amend. I subjoin 
the salutation with mine own hand, for your assurance in future. The 
grace of God be with you. 


§ 96. 


THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


Paul went from Corinth, where he wrote the two last-mentioned Epis- 
tles, to Ephesus. There he abode several weeks, and composed this 
letter of instruction to his son Titus. 

The apostle speaks of having left Titus behind at Crete (Tit. 1: 5). 
Now, of all his voyages, this is the only one in which he can have vis- 
ited Crete. 

The first time he left Syria to go abroad among the nations, he di- 
rected his course to the provinces of Asia Minor, and returned by land 
to Antioch. When he departed again, he took the same course, pass- 
ed through the same countries, and went to Troas, whence he visited 
Macedonia, and came to Athens and Corinth. 


516 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


On leaving this latter city, he embarked in its eastern harbor, Cen- 
chrea, with the purpose of sailing to Syria (Acts 18: 18). On this oc- 
casion only, did his course hie so near Crete that he might have visited 
it. We cannot tell whether the ship in which he embarked made this 
circuit or whether he was cast upon the island. If the latter was the 
case, he encountered one of those perils by sea which he mentions in 
2 Cor. chap. 11. 

When he again left the main land of Asia, he went to Macedonia, 
and returned by the way of Troas (Acts 20: 1 seq.), whence he em- 
barked for Miletus. But all the places in this voyage are so precisely 
stated, that we know his course exactly ; he came to Miletus not long 
after mid-day, and did not approach Crete at all (20: 13—16). Hence 
his visit to this island must have been made during the voyage undertaken 
by him from Corinth to Syria, which carried him, however, to Ephesus. 

Other circumstances, moreover, which point to this voyage, confirm 
the position we have taken. At the same time that Paul arrived at 
Ephesus, a certain Jew was there, named Apollos, who was intending 
to go to Achaia, and for this purpose obtained letters of recommenda- 
tion from the brethren (Acts 18: 24, 27). Now, in this Epistle of the 
apostle, we find mention of an Apollos, who is on a journey, and an in- 
junction to Titus to help him forward in it (Tit. 3: 13). 

Ifthis be the same Apollos who is spoken of in the Acts, as all the 
circumstances denote, we may see from his example that the circuitous 
route from Hphesus to Corinth, or vice versa, by way of Crete, was not 
unusual ; whether it was occasioned by commercial or other reasons. 

But an important difficulty lies against the supposition that the Acts 
and the Epistle to Titus refer to the same journey of Apollos. 'The 
Acts concludes the account of Paul’s residence at Ephesus by saying, 
that he bade farewell and departed for Palestine, and travelled through 
Galatia and Phrygia, confirming the brethren in the faith, (18: 21, 
22,23). It is not till after Luke has said this, that he speaks of Apol- 
los, who, therefore, it may be said, must have arrived after Paul’s de- 
parture, and could not have seen him, much less obtained any letter of 
recommendation from him. So it would seem at first view; but when 
we take into consideration what is said soon after in the Acts, the case 
is altered again. “‘It came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth, 
Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus” (19: 
1). Now what induced the historian to recur again to Apollos, and to 
begin by mentioning him, when about to speak of Paul? Plainly, he de- 
signed, by a comparison with the arrival of Apollos at Corinth, to fix 
with more precision the time when the apostle travelled through the up- 
per countries and came to Ephesus the second time. But, it is said, 
this is not exactly the sense of the words, διελθόντα τὰ ἀνωτεριχὰ 
μέρη ἐλθεῖν εἰς Lqeoov. Is it imagined that they signify μετὰ τὸ 
διελϑεῖν---ηλϑεν, after having travelied through, he came to Ephesus? 
In that case the phraseology must have been, διεληλυϑοια---ἐλϑεῖν, 
which would have included the sense of μετά, denoting the pluperfect. 
On the contrary the words διελθόντα--- ἐλθεῖν signify merely dunddev 
καὶ ἦλϑεν ; both occurrences belong to the same period, and are not 
so distinguished in point of time that one is represented as longer past 
than the other. The sense, therefore, is this: While Apollos was at 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 517 


Corinth, Paul passed through the upper coasts and came to Ephesus. 
Now if this journey was not taken till Apollos reached Corinth, the de- 
parture of Apollos to Corinth and that of Paul to Syria must have oc- 
curred at about the same time. And whatthen? They must, there- 
fore, have met at Ephesus, whence they sailed, one to Corinth and the 
other to Syria. 

Is it asked how this can be reconciled with Titus 3: 12? In an un- 
commonly simple and natural manner, as I imagine. Paul writes to 
Titus as follows: ‘‘ When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or T'ychi- 
cus (who was of the province of Asia, in the capital of which Paul wrote 
the Epistle (Acts 20: 4), and who probably accompanied him to Jeru- 
salem), be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis; for I have determin- 
ed there to winter.” The apostle went from Ephesus to keep the feast 
at Jerusalem; thence he went to Antioch, and after some time departed 
from that city, and went through Upper Asia, Galatia and Phrygia, to 
Ephesus again. He past the winter, therefore, somewhere in Asia Mi- 
nor. Now it is well known that there was a town named Nicopolis 
between Antioch and Tarsus, the birth-place of the apostle.’ At 
Nicopolis he was about equally distant from two cities which were dear 
to him, and it was on his way to the upper countres. In going from 
Antioch through Cilicia, he could not but pass through or near this 
town. Now Titus knew from the route which the apostle had taken, 
which of the many cities of this name was meant. Indeed, this Nicopo- 
lis was better known to him than any other, as he was of Asiatic descent. 
At least, he was Paul’s pupil, γνήσιον τέκνον (Tit. 1: 4), and closely 
ri) ΙΝ with him, before the apostle had visited Europe (Gal. 2: 
1—6). 


§ 97. 


It was the business of Titus in Crete to bring to maturity the seeds 
which the apostle had there sown ; a difficult commission among so de- 
generate a people. Not a single Cretan possessed all the virtues whic 
Paulin this Epistle to Titus requires in an elder of the church, and th 
people generally were addicted to all the vices which he reproves. Th 
Epistle has a very exact local application, and almost every sentence in 
it might be illustrated and confirmed from classic authors. We will 
here specify only the more prominent traits in the character of is 
people. ue 

Nature had conferred on this island every thing which tends to make 
man happy. In ancient times, moreover, the inhabitants possessed a 
renowned political constitution, which has often been placed by the side 
of that of Sparta ; but at this Peiod, and indeed much earlier, their in- 
stitutions and morals had sunk extremely low. 

The people were of an unsteady character, prone to quarrels, civil 


1 Strabo L. XIV. p. 465. Ed. Casaub. fol. 1587. This is the Nicopolis in the 
“Συνέκδημος of Hierocles (p. 660), which perplexed Wesseling so much. Vet. 
Roman. Itiner. Amstelod. 1735. Steph. Byzant. V. Ἴσσος. Πόλις μεταξυὶ «Συρίας 
καὶ Κιλικίας, ἐφ᾽ ἡ AdéEavdgog Δάρειον ἐνίκησε, ἢ ἐκλήϑη διὰ τοῦτο Νικόπολες 
ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Eustath. Παρεκβολ. in Dionys. Perieget. v. 119. 


518 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


commotions and broils, to robbery and violence.! Avaricious and sor- 
did to an excessive degree, they regarded nothing as base which grati- 
fied their greediness of gain.” Hence their want of veracity, their 
treacherous and deceitful disposition, which had become a common by- 
word. Even when their morals were purest, they were strongly addicted 
to wine ;4 and their licentionsness is frequently mentioned and de- 
nounced by the ancients. 


~ aa 2 y ¢ 
τῆς ἅπαντ ἐχουσης 
M ͵ « 
Αρητης, onov πολεσσιν 
9», ’ 5» , 
Lowe ἐποργίαζεε... 


Religion itself gave rise to many of the excesses of this people. Many 
of the gods were born in this island. ‘They even pointed out their sep- 
ulchres and catacombs, and they celebrated the festivals and mysteries 
of them all. Hence holidays, recreation, and idleness, were perpetu~ 
al amongthem. One of their own poets, called ϑεολόγος by Diodorus, 
gave testimony against them, which testimony was corroborated by 
Paul (1: 12). 

Jews, too, had settled amongst them, who, to all appearance, ἱπ|- 
proved but little here in point of morals.? The apostle seems to have 
regarded them as worse than the native inhabitants. 


§ 98. 


Such were the circumstances under which Titus was to establish ἃ 
christian church. ΤῸ the young teacher, left alone to perform this diffi- 
cult office, nothing could be more acceptable than precepts and rules of 
conduct from his wiser instructor. These Paul furnished him in this 
Epistle, of which we can only give a very general outline. He first de- 
scribes the qualities which should be possessed by elders of the church, 
the vices from which they should be free and which they should most 
earnestly combat (1:—2:). Then the virtues to be expected of the aged 
women and of the female sex in general, and also the instruction to be 
given to servants. He exhorts him likewise to be himself an example, 
and to inculcate universal amendment on the part of the followers of 
Jesus (—3:). He admonishes him to inculcate obedience, moderation 
and forbearance, and to avoid all foolish disputes and unprofitable spec- 
ulations. In conclusion, he commends to his good offices certain per- 
sons who were travelling ; aud appoints Nicopolis as a place of meeting. 


1 Polyb. L. VI. 46. Διὰ τὴν ἔμφυτον σφίσι πλεονεξίαν ἕν πλείσταις ἰδίᾳ καὶ 
κατὰ κοινὸν στάσεσι καὶ φόνοις καὶ πολέμοις ἐμφυλίοις ἀναστρεφόμενοι. 

ΚΒ Loe. cit. Καϑύλου δ᾽ 6 περὶ τὴν αἰσχροκέρδειαν καὶ πλεονεξίαν τρόπος . . «. 
ἐπιχωριάζει παρ᾿ αὑτοῖς. 

3. Πρὸς Κρῆτα κρητίζειν. Snidas. Platarch in Amil. Paul. T. I. p. 488. Henr. 
Steph. Polyb. VILL. 21 and 18. Kors ὑπάρχων, καὶ φύσει ποικίλος. Zenodot. 
Proverb. v. χρητίζειν. 

4 They even regarded τὴν ἕν τοῖς οἴνοις πολλὴν διατριβήν as of advantage to 
them (Plato de Legg. L. 1. Vol. VIII. p. 38. Bipont. 

5 Philo, Legat. ad Caium. Edit. Turneb. p. 725. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 519 


§ 99. 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Paul wrote the Epistle to Titus at Ephesus, and went from thence to 
Syria and Palestine ; he had promised, however, to come again to Eph- 
esus, and didso. He returned thither through Galatia and Phrygia, 
and after his visit to the Galatians wrote them this Epistle for urgent 
reasons. It was written either on the road to Ephesus, or, as is more 
probable, at Ephesus (Acts 18: 23), in the second year of Nero. 

He had indeed preached to them before (Acts 16: 6), after he had 
attended the council of apostles and elders at Jerusalem and then de- 
parted again to go among the Gentiles. The subject of his instruction 
was the decree of this council respecting certain Jewish rites (Acts 16: 
4,6). This decree did, indeed, liberate the Gentiles from the obser- 
vance of the law, but, from tenderness towards the Jews, did not declare 
its abrogation or inutility, and even suffered the preachers of Moses to 
pursue their employment without opposition (15:20, 21). In this spirit 
Paul preached among the Galatians, and with success, not even meeting 
with any hindrance on the part of the Jews resident in the country. 
The state of things was for the present quiet, and the Epistle cannot 
have been composed directly after this visit. 

It was written, then, after the second visit, when he went to Ephesus 
through Galatia and Phrygia; for he speaks in the Epistle as though a 
second visit had taken place. He distinguishes an earlier and a later 
by the words: εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον (Gal. 4: 13). This 
could be said only in allusion to a visit subsequent to this first. Of this 
earliest visit, and the instruction which he communicated to them dur- 
ing it, he says, that he then made allowance for human weakness, Ou 
aodeveruy τῆς σαρχὸς εὐἰηγγελισάμην, in order not to give offence by 
stricter preaching. He then contrasts this preaching with a different 
species, in which he told them the plain truth, and remarks the opposite 
effects of the two modes. They heard hit gladly, when he exercised 
indulgence towards them, but when he told them the truth without re- 
serve, they became inimical to him (4: 16), ὥστε ἐχϑρος ὑμῶν γέγονα, 
ἀληϑεύων ὑμῖν. 

From these indications, the Epistle must have been written after the 
second visit; not long after, however, because this change in their feel- 
ingsis said to have taken place soon, ταχέως (1: 6).} 


1 Dr. Koppe (Nov. Test. Perpet. Adnot. I[llustr. Vol. VI. Ed. Tychsen. p. 8, 
9) is desirous of making out an earlier journey to Galatia than those mentioned 
in Acts 16: 6 and 13; 22. His reasons are as follows. First; Barnabas was 
known to the Galatians (Galat. 2: 13). Now they did not become acquainted 
with him on occasion of either of the two journeys above mentioned ; for he had 
before separated from Paul (Acts 15: 36—39). It must therefore have been at 
an earlier period. Secondly ; the first journey of Paul to Galatia expressly men- 

tioned in the Acts (10: 6) was undertaken for the purpose of confirming the 
brethren in the faith (15: 36, 41), which supposes the Galatians to have already 
received instruction, and this can have been the case only on the previous jour- 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


σι 
wo 
i=) 


§ 100. 


The inhabitants of Galatia, or Gallo-Grecia, were a people closely 
allied to our own nation. ‘I'wo Gallic tribes, the Trocmi and Tolisto- 
boii, as their names were distorted or mutilated in the languages of the 
Greeks and Romans, together with a Celtic race, the Tectosages (all pre- 
cisely alike in Janguage and manners, as we are assured by Strabo, 
who was their neighbor),' more than two centuries and a half before the 
Christian era conquered that part of Asia which was called from them 
Galatia and Grecian Gaul. 

Jerome makes an important remark respecting their language. He 
says that it was the same as that spoken in his time by the Treviri.? If 
this was the case, they must have been of German origin ; for, long be- 
fore Jerome’s time, the Germans had possession of the countries on the 
Moselle, and the Treviri were so proud of their German descent that 
they vaunted it whenever others confounded them with the Gauls.% 

This father visited Gaul and the country of the Treviri, and soon 
after set out for Asia, travelling through Phrygia and Galatia, and 
could thus compare the languages before his recollection had been weak- 
ened by time. j 

The assertion of the father finds confirmation in other facts. Livy 
calls the leader of the horde, that led the van of the expedition to Asia, 
Lutarius,* which is clearly a German name. 

At least one of the three tribes must have been of German origin, 
though Strabo makes them alike in language and customs. One of 
them, that of the Tectosages, is mentioned elsewhere in history. ‘This 
people (whom Cesar calls Volc@ Tectosages, perhaps nation ( Volk) of 
the Tectosages), had in ancient times, when the Gauls were of a warlike 
character, left Gaul and settled in the Hercynian forest, the commence- 
ment of which was in our vicinity,2n jfinzbus Rauracorum, where they 
are said to have gradually adopted German manners and customs.° 


ney through Asia Minor, when Paul and Barnabas preached at Lystra and Der- 
be, and in the region round about, εἰς τὴν περίχωρον (Acts 14: 6). 

But must the Galatians have known by sight and personally all of whom Paul 
assumes in his Epistle that they knew something ; e. g. James, Cephas, and John? 
Further, the purpose of confirming the brethren did not prohibit labors in behalf 
of those who had not yet heard the word. They even on this journey thought of 
visiting Bithynia and other countries of Asia, and would have done so, had they 
not been forbidden by the Spirit (Acts 16: 6,7). Luke, moreover, clearly dis- 
tinguishes the Galatians from those whose faith was to be confirmed. He com- 
mences speaking of the latter in 15: 41, Sujoyero . . . ἐπιστηρίζων, and con- 
cludes at 16: 5, Av μὲν ἐκκλησίαι ἐστηρεοῦντο, and does not begin till afterwards ἡ 
to speak of Phrygia and Galatia. 

1 Strabo, L. XII. p. 390. 


2 Hieronym. Proleg. in Ep. ad Galat. L. II. “Unum est quod inferimus . . 
Galatas, excepto sermone Greco, quo omnis oriens loquitur, propriam linguam 
eandem habere, quam Treviros, nec referre, si aliqua exinde corruperint, cum et 
Aphri Phenicum linguam nonnulla ex parte mutaverint.”’ 

3 Taciti Germania, Sect. 28. 

4 Livius L. XXXVIII. c. 16. 


5 Julius Cwsar, Bell. Gall. L. VI. § 22. Beatus Rhenanus supposes them to 
have dwelt in Wartemburg, in the county of Teck. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 521 


This happened, we are told by another author, at the time when Bren- 
aus, with an army of Gauls, conquered Rome ; their leader to the Her- 
cynian forest was Sigovesus.' This name, again, is so evidently Ger- 
man, that we can hardly think they were at their first settlement an en- 
tirely foreign nation, andonly gradually adopted the peculiarities of our 
forefathers. In fact, they did not remain long. 

Half a century afterward, another Brennus? took a multitude of these 
Tectosages along with him to Thrace, to swell the horde that was a- 
bout to pass into Asia. This great expedition, it would seem, issued 
from Gaul, passed over the Rhine, along the Danube, through Nori- 
cum, Pannonia, and Meesia, and at its entrance into Germany carried 
along with it many ofthe Tectosages. On their arrival in Thrace, Lu- 
tarius took them with him, crossed the Bosphorus, and effected the con- 
quest in Asia Minor of which we have before spoken. 

But, supposing myself able to pursue this investigation further, this 
is not the place for the purpose; particularly as neither’ the biography 
of the apostle nor this Epistle would be likely to receive any important 
illustration from it. 

In their new country they became acquainted with the Greek lan- 
guage, and were called Gallo-Greci; they made use of this Janguage 
in public documents and ingggiptions, of which there are still some re- 
mains. ry 

They retained, it appears, their ancestral religion, though they seem 
to have learned from the Phrygians the worship of the magna mater 
detim ; and they likewise deviated from the custom of the Gallic and 
Germanic nations in erecting temples. ‘There were few cities to be 
found among them, with the exception of Ancyra, Tavium, and Pes- 
sinus, which carried on some trade. It was this circumstance, proba- 
bly, which attracted thither those Jewish citizens, who, according to 
Josephus’ account, enjoyed here considerable immunities, the record of 
which was deposited in the temple of Augustus at Ancyra.? 

Although the climate diminished their courage and hardiness,’ still 
they were not effeminate, and not long before the Christian era were so 
far from having lost their former simplicity of manners, that a Roman 
orator, among his encomiums on their king, remarks particularly that 
he was a very industrious husbandman and grazier.° 

When Paul first came among them, he met with the most cordial re- 
ception and very general adherence (Acts 16: 6. Gal. 4: 13, 14 seq.). 
When, however, on a subsequent visit (Acts 18: 23), he evinced less 
forbearance towards Judaism, and expressed himself with more freedom 
respecting its value, ἀληϑεύων (Gal. 4: 16), those Jews residing in the 
country, who had embraced Christianity, hardly waited for his departure 
before they began zealously to uphold the law of Moses. 

Certain Jewish Christians, however, who had not long since come 
thither from Jerusalem, seem to have been particularly active in this 


1 [Livius, L. V. c. 34.) 
2 Livius, LL. XXXVIII. c. 16. 

3 Joseph. Antiq. L. XVI. c. 6. 

4 Florus, Hist. Ron. L. If. 6.11. Liv. XXXVIIT. c. 8. 

5 Cicero, Pro rege Deiotaro: “ Diligentissimus agricola et pecuarius.” 


522 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


matter; for the leaders in it extolled the heads of the church at Jeru- 
salem, viz. John, Peter, and James, and boasted of being their disciples, 
drawing disadvantageous comparisons between Paul and them, and 
Paul’s doctrine and their doctrine, as is evident from intimations con- 
tained in the Epistle. And, in fact, the Jewish converts gained the 
ascendancy, and persuaded the Galatians of the indispensableness of the 
whole Jewish ritual to the followers of the Messiah. The Galatians 
permitted themselves to be circumcised, and, indeed, they conformed 
to the Jewish religion in its entire extent. Thus all Paul’s aims were 
at once thwarted, his labors rendered in part abortive, and his hopes 
grievously disappointed. 


§ 10]. 


He soon Jearned this, and again urged upon their attention in this 
Epistle the principles he had recently inculcated upon them. Though 
not merely a Jew from Jerusalem, but an angel from heaven, should 
teach any other doctrine than that I have given you, believe him not 
(—1: 10). 1 am not a disciple of man, receiving my commission 
from Peter, James, or John, but an apostle, taught and endued with au- 
thority from on high, and am in no wise inferior to either of the other 
apostles. I have even rebuked Peter to his face, for his insincerity in 
regard to Judaism (—3: 1). Have you, through Jesus Christ, only be- 
come more fully acquainted with the Jewish Jaw, or have you received 
instruction of a more exalted, spiritual, and efficacious character? Did 
Abraham obtain the promise of the Messiah by the Jaw, which did not 
then exist, or through faith? Has not the law rather brought the 
displeasure of God upon mankind, from which Jesus has ransomed 
us (—3: 23)? 

The law was but a preparation for Christianity; it was only our 
schoolmaster ; but now we are released from its superintendence; we 
have become of age, and are heirs of God (—4: 8). Further; ye were 
freemen through Christ, and now have returned of your own accord 
to astate of bondage. Christianity is the religion of liberty, the law 
that of bondage, as you may see from an allegorical explanation of the 
story of Hagar and Sarah (—5:). Judaism, therefore, is no longer suit- 
able for Christians ; labor rather to improve your morals, and to amend 
your minds and hearts. Be on your guard against those who would ca- 
Jumniate me; humble the pride and arrogance of self-conceited wis- 
dom. Henceforth glory in Christ alone. 


ᾧ 102. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Corinth, a large commercial city, between two harbors, one of which 
afforded an entrance to the western and the other to the eastern mari- 
ner, was situated, as it were, in the centre of the civilized world, where 
merchants from every quarter of the globe met and exchanged their ar- 
ticles of traffic. It was also celebrated for the Isthmian games, and the 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 523 


temple of Venus, in which more than a thousand priestesses of that 
goddess ministered to licentiousness under cover of religion.! On these 
various accounts there was a constant influx of foreigners of every de- 
scription, who brought the wealth and the vices of all nations to a city 
where the mariner, the merchant, and the soldier, could freely indulge 
those vices for money.” 

This city, for having ill-treated certain Roman envoys, became, with 
all its wealth and treasures of art, the spoil of the Romans, and was 
razed to the ground by Mummius. After remaining a long time unin- 
habited, it was rebuilt by Julius Cesar, and peopled with a Roman 
colony. It soon flourished anew; three of the Cesars busied them- 
selves in increasing its splendor, and prosecuting the vast enterprise of 
cutting through the isthmus and uniting both harbors, in order to avoid 
the passage round the promontory of Malea. 

The ancient manners of the city likewise returned. Acrocorinth was 
again the residence of the Isthmian Dione; anda profligate life was 
commonly called a Corinthian life. It was regarded as the most vo- 
luptuous of all cities,? and the satirist must have been in jest, when ap- 
parently doubtful whether, in his time, Athens or Corinth merited the 
preference in this respect.? In this city Paul was desirous of founding 
a Christian church. He visited it, as we have seen,on his earliest 
journey to Europe, and preached the kingdom of God first to the Jews. 
They were, however, no less indocile here than at Thessalonica. He 
succeeded only in gaining over a few; in particular, two of their chief 
men, Crispus and Sosthenes. The metuentes, however, or Gentiles in- 
clined to Judaism, sincerely attached themselves to him, and seem to 
have been, in the sequel and always, his faithful adherents; while the 
Jews, who gradually multiplied, did what they could to frustrate the 
plans of the apostle. He remained here a year and six months; Tim- 
otheus and Silas were his assistants (Acts 18: 1—19). 

Circumstances having called him away, many, soon after his depar- 
ture, relapsed into their old mode of life, again resorted to the priestess- 
es of Acrocoriuth, and conducted generally as they were before wont to 
do. On this account he wrote them an Epistle (1 Cor. 5: 9—12), not 
now extant however, in which he forbade believers to have any inter- 
course with such reprobates. 


§ 103. 


Paul, meanwhile, returned from’ Jerusalem through Galatia and 
Phrygia to Ephesus, as he had promised. While he abode there, the 


_ 1 Ζ1ό τε τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερὸν οὕτω πλοίσιον ὑπῆρξεν, ὥστε πλείους 7) χελίας 
ἱεροδούλους ἐκέκτητο ἑταίρας, ἃς ἀνετίϑεσαν τῇ ϑεῷ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες. Καὶ 
διὰ ταύτας οὖν ἐπολυοχλεῖτο ἡ πόλις καὶ ἐπλουτίζετο. Strabo, L. VII. p. 261, or, 
according to Casaubon’s 2d. ed., p. 378. 
2 Strabo, L. XII. p. 385. 
3 Hesych. Lex. χκορενϑιάζειν, μαστροπεύειν, ἐταιρεύειν. 
4 Dio Chrys. Orat. Corinth, ois p. 119. i cage βάψει οἰκεῖτε τῶν 
οἴσων τε καὶ γεγενημένων ἔπαφρο την» and p. 120. wea % 
«Ελλάδος, ὄλβιοι, μα aout Ὅς as seer ἀκ el 
5 Lucian, Amores. 


524 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Corinthians gave him still more urgent occasion for admonition. He 
wrote them, therefore, two Epistles, which are stil] extant. 

The first of them is the only one of all Paul’s Epistles, of the occa- 
sion of which we have any account resting on valid authority. In the 
time of Clement of Rome, the Corinthian church was divided into fac- 
tions; he therefore recalled to their mind the purport and. occasion of 
the first Epistle of Paul, as a similar case. Then, also, he says, Pau} 
wrote to them because they had formed themselves into parties under 
the name of this or that apostle, of Cephas or of Apollos.' 

History gives us no further information. In order to get an idea of 
the condition of the Corinthian church, we must examine the Epistles 
themselves, and collect and compare the individual facts they present ; 
for, without this preliminary labor, it will be impossible to understand 
these letters aright, and comprehend every part of them.? These vari- 
ous factions into which they were divided, sought to exalt the leaders 
they adopted, and whose doctrines they professed to follow, above every 
one else, τοὺς ὑπὲρ λίαν ἀποστόλους (2 Cor. 11:5. 12: 11), and to de- 
preciate those of their opponents. While some called themselves disci- 
ples of Paul, Ceplras, or Apollos, others adopted the imposing name of 
followers of Christ. Probably they proclaimed themselves adherents of 
James, the brother of our Lord, and thought that thus they became dis- 
ciples of Jesus in a stricter sense than the rest. 

We can perceive thatthe main dispute was about the obligatory force 
of Judaism. The supporters of Judaism in Galatia appealed to Ce- 
phas and James, in order to oppose against Paul, who discarded the Jew- 
ish institutions from the Christian system, authority as fully admitted 
as his own. This question divided all these various parties, of which 
we have spoken, into two principal ones. The adherents of, Cephas 
and James were in favour of the law; the friends of Paul adopted his 
opinion. Apollos, too, with his adherents, was always at heart inclined 
to favor Paul, and can have had no hand in any rupture (1 Cor. 16: 12). 

The leaders of the anti-Pauline party, the ψευδαπόστολοι, and μέτα- 
σχηματιζόμενον εἰς ἀποστόλους Χριστοῦ, as Paul calls them, who 
pretended to be the assertors and defenders of the doctrines of Cephas 
and James, were, as might be supposed, converted Jews (2 Cor. 11: 
22), who came from abroad, in all probability from Palestine (070 me- 
vot, 2 Cor. 11: 4), and could, therefore, boast of acquaintance with the 
apostles at Jerusalem and familiarity with their tenets. They were not 
even of the better class of Jews, but such as adhered to the doctrines of 
the Sadducees, and even after becoming Christians, while they were full 
of zeal for the law, they undermined the hopes of the believers, and 
raised doubts concerning the resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 35 seq. Comp. 
Matth. 22: 23); so that Paul was obliged to adduce against them the 


1° AvaldBere τὴν ἐπιστολὴν» τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου. Ti πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῆ 
εὐαγγελίου ἔγραψεν ; “Ex ἀλήϑειας πνευματικῶς ἐπέστειλεν ὑμῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ TE, 
καὶ Κηφᾶ, καὶ ᾿“πολλῶ, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσϑαι. ᾿Αλλ 
ἡ πρόσκλισις ἐκείνη, ἧττον ἁμαρτίαν προσένεγκεν * προσεκλίϑητε γὰρ ἀποστόλοις, 
καὶ ἀνδρὶ δεδοκιμασμένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Clem. I. Ep. ad Cor. ο. 47. and Hegesipp- 
apud Euseb. H. E. L. III. ο. 15. 


_2 Thave here made use of a work which I regard as the best on this subject : 
Storr, Notitie Hist. Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinth. Tubing. 1788. 4to. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 525 


testimony of James and Cephas, the teachers whose disciples they pro- 
fessed to be (1 Cor. 15: 5,7). 

These Jews, proud of their understanding (1 Cor. 1: 17 seq.), depre- 
ciated the authority of Paul, from interested motives, and extolled their 
own knowledge (1 Cor. 2: 12. 2 Cor. 11: 16, 17). 

Vehement as the dispute was, the parties did not have separate pla- 
ces of assembly for instruction and common edification. This very 
sn however, was the occasion of many scandalous scenes and disor- 

ers. 

At their love-feasts, love and kindness were never visible. Instead of 
eating in common, and refreshing the poor brethren from the food 
brought with them, every one, as soon as he came, ate what he had, 
without waiting for another, and frequently some feasted immoderately, 
while the needy were hungry (1 Cor. 11: 17 seq.). 

When some were preparing to pray or sing, others raised their voices 
for exhortation, and exercised the gifts of the spirit, λαλεῖν yAwooars, 
προφητεία, ἑρμηνεία, about the nature of which there has been so 
much dispute of late (1 Cor. 12: 13: 14:). The women, likewise, did 
their part, by questions and interruptions, to carry confusion to its 
height (1 Cor. 14: 34 seq.). 

Thus the internal discipline of the assemblies, and all prospect of 
edification, were at an end; and soon the exterior decency, which had 
been maintained by the members of the society in civil life, was lost. 
Formerly, when disputes arose between believers, they were adjusted 
by umpires from their own number; now, as mutual confidence was 
more and more diminished, they brought their accusations, to the dis- 
grace of Christianity, before the heathen tribunals (1 Cor. 6: 1 seq.). 

As tothe main dispute, viz. about the obligation of Jewish obser- 
vances, it was by no means confined to words and arguments, but each 
party strove to exhibit its peculiar opinion as clearly as possible in its 
conduct. Each by its procedure gave all possible occasion for ill-will 
and complaint on the part of the other. The Jews required circum- 
cision as an indispensable religious rite ; the followers of Paul, on the 
other hand, endeavored to create a new foreskin, and to efface all tra- 
ces of circumcision (1 Cor, 7: 18 seq.). 

While those inclined to Judaism observed and defended a distinction 
of meats, the adherents of Paul ate every thing, without distinction, 
which was sold in the shambles, and even the meats which had been 
offered to idols (1 Cor. 10: 25, 28. 8: 1 seq.). 


1 Many of the disorders reproved by Paul could not have taken place, had they, 
as has been inferred by some from the expression in 1 Cor. 1: 2, ἕν παντὶ τόπῳ 
αὐτῷ TE καὶ ἡμῶν, possessed separate places of assembling. The interpretation 
I have given of this passage is disapproved by Bertholdt (Einl. Th. VI. § 719. 
p. 3331), and justly. But neither am 1 satisfied with his, for many reasons, 
which cannot be detailed here. Perhaps the following explanation is less objec- 
tionable. The apostle wishes grace and peace from God to the members of the 
Corinthian church, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, wherever they might be ; ἐν τόπῳ αὐτῶν, at 
' Corinth and in its vicinity, and ἐν τόπῳ ἡμῶν, i. 6. with me. For there were 
several with Paul, besides those who were about to return (16: 17), viz. Sosthe- 
nes (1: 1), Apollos (16: 12), probably those of the house of Chloe (1: 11), and 
others. The ἀδελφοί (16: 20), were not either Asiatics or Ephesians, as the sal- 
utations of these occur before (16: 18, 19), but no doubt Corinthians, who had left 
the scene of these disorders and betaken themselves to Paul. 


§26 PAUL’8 EPISTLES. 


Nor was this enough; they made no scruple to be present them- 
selves at the sacrificial feasts. Sometimes they even participated in 
scandalous transactions which occurred at these feasts, and inconsider- 
ately plunged themselves into gross misdemeanors (1 Cor. 10: 20, 21. 
8: 10 seq.). 

According to Jewish custom, the women were to be veiled in the 
synagogues and public assemblies. This usage of the synagogues the 
anti-Jews discarded (2 Cor. 11: 5, 6, 10 seq.), and in this point followed 
the practice of the Gentiles. 

In opposition to Judaism, which considered offspring by matrimony 
as a special blessing from God, some imposed upon themselves a life of 
celibacy, which they justified by Paul’s example (1 Cor. 7: 7, 8), and 
recommended to others (1 Cor. 7: 1 seq. 25). . Some even went so far 
as to resolve on perpetual continence in the married state (1 Cor. 7: 
3—5). 

In what manner the supporters of Judaism went astray in their zeal 
to give offence to their opponents, we have no information; with the 
exception of a single case, in which they were unrivalled. They even 
defended the Jewish casuistical indulgences to proselytes, and (a 
thing of which the Pauline party is acquitted, 2 Cor. 2: 11) allowed a 
Gentile, who conformed to Judaism while professing Chistianity, to 
marry his step-mother. For, according tothe ancient doctrine, whosoev- 
er embraced Judaism was considered as a new-born child, Ὁ 74 
5>22W 1209, and all his previous connexions were looked upon as 
null. His mother, father, brethren, and sisters, were not now related 
to him.!. In such a case his previous connexions by marriage were no 
longer at all regarded, and improprieties, founded on principle, were the 
consequence. 


§ 104. 


Chloe, a believer at Corinth, gave the apostle the first news of these 
dissensions (1 Cor. 1: 11). Some information he gained from others, 
ἀκούεται (1 Cor. 5:1). At last the Corinthians themselves sent a depu- 
tation, of which it would seem Apollos and Sosthenes were members (1 
Cor. 1: 1. 16: 12), with a letter to the apostle. He not only replied to 
this, but took notice of the preceding accounts which he had received. 
When he composed his reply, he was still at Ephesus, where he intend- 
ed to remain till Pentecost (16: 8). It was, therefore, written about the 
close of his residence in this city, in the beginning of the fourth year of 
Nero. ‘The Corinthians probably received his letter at the time of the | 
passover, to which reference is had in the finely conceived metaphor in 
1 Cor. 5: 7, 8. 

But we are not permitted undisputed possession of this passage, which 
is such a definite designation of time. Is not this, it is said, totally mis- 
taking an allegory of the apostle, which merely contains an injunction 
to be blameless and manifest devout reverence towards God? It is 
true, that if there were only the words, “ Know ye not that a little leaven 


aes Selden, De successionibus ad leges Ebreorum. c. 26. p. 191. Elzevir. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 527 


leaveneth the whole lump? purge out, therefore, the old leaven,” the 
figure might, as in Gal. 5: 9, contain no specific reference, and be only 
an allusion to purity in general. But the apostle here contracts the cir- 
cle of his figure, and mentions the passover: ‘‘ for Christ our passover 
is sacrificed for us.” How happened Paul, in speaking of excommuni- 
cation, to select the figure of the passover, unless the excommunication 
were to take place atthat time? Ifit were to take place at Pentecost, 
or any other time, the figure would have had no occasion or pertinency. 
Paul then proceeds: wore ἑορτάξζωμεν, “so that we may keep the feast, 
not with old leaven,” ete. The word ἑορτάζειν cannot mean here, de- 
voutly to serve God. The subject is not the reformation of believers, 
or a change toa more virtuous life ; but the purification of the church 
by the expulsion of an unworthy member. Hence the proposed general 
interpretation, is entirely aside from the purpose of the writer, and we 
are restricted tothe more particular one : that you may keep this feast 
as a purified church, free from the intrusion of a wicked participant. 

Paul intrusted the Epistle, it would seem, to some of the society 
who were going home (16: 15—19), viz. Stephanus, Fortunatus, and 
Achaicus; while Apollos and Sosthenes abode still at Ephesus (16: 12. 
comp. with 1: 1). For it was not only proper, but necessary, to deliver 
to the deputies the evidence that their mission had been accomplished, 
to carry to those who had sent them. 

At the same time, and as it is easy to see, in company with them, 
Timothy went to Corinth, as a deputy on the part of the apostle ; for so 
the dignity of ecclesiastical affairs demanded (Acts 15: 27). It was his 
duty to promote the effect of the Epistle by word of mouth, and, when- 
ever there was any doubt as to its meaning, to explain and solve it, in 
accordance with the apostle’s sentiments. Somuch of his business is 
stated in the Epistle itself (4: 16, 17). 

The time at which Timothy set out may be inferred from the fact 
that he was expected back again at Ephesus on the feast of Pentecost 
(1 Cor. 16: 8—12). According to this injunction, he must-have set 
out as soon as practicable after winter had broken up. If he went 
the whole distance by sea, he may have embarked about the spring 
equinox ; for mariners commenced their long voyages at the equinoctium 
vernum.' The number of days consumed in going from Ephesus to 
Athens may be inferred from a journey of Cicero’s, which was rather 
dilatory. He set out from Ephesus on the first of October, and arrived 
at Athens on the fourteenth.2 His brother Quintus accomplished the 
same voyage in precisely the same time.? Taking these voyages as a 
standard, and allowing a day or two for the passage from Athens to Cor- 
inth, Timotheus arrived at the latter place sometime during the first 
week in April. 

Let us suppose, however, that he thought it more advisable to take 
the land route to Troas, and then through Macedonia, in order to 
abridge his voyage by sea. We know that, with extraordinary expedi- 

1 Liv. L. XXXVII. c. 9. 

2 Cic. ad Attic. Ep. L. VI. Ep. 8 and 9. 

3 Ad. Attic. Ep. L. IIL. Ep. 9. where “ valde fuit ei properandum” of course 
refers to what follows, ‘‘ ne quid absens,” etc. 


528 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


‘tion, the distance from Amphissa to Amphipolis could be passed over in 
six days.1- Although Timothy would not want aid and means of expedi- 
tion among the churches of Macedonia, we will not assume any thing ex- 
traordinary ; and, in order that we may proceed safely, we will derive our 
estimate of the European journey from two passages in the (so-called) 
Itinerary of Antoninus. One passage contains an account of the dis- 
tance from Athens to Thessalonica.” From Athens to Oropus are 
thirteen Roman miles; from thence to Thebes, forty-four ; to Chalcis, 
thirty-six ; to Opus, twenty-four ; to Demetrias, forty-eight ; to Larissa, 
fourteen ; to Dios, forty-four; to Berwa, twenty-four; to Thessalonica, 
seventeen. In all, two hundred and sixty-four. The other states the 
distance from Thessalonica to Neapolis.? From Thessalonica to Mel- 
lisurgis, twenty-seven ; from thence to Apollonia, twenty ; to Amphipo- 
lis, seventeen ; to Philippi, thirty ; to Neapolis, thirty-three. In all, one 
hundred and twenty-seven. Both distances together amount to three 
hundred and ninety-one Roman miles. Reducing them to German 
miles, taking according to the usual reckoning five Roman to one Ger- 
man mile, we have seventy-eight of our miles, or one hundred and fifty- 
six hours, 1. 6. fifteen or sixteen days’ journeys. Ifwe add two days for 
the distance from Athens to Corinth, and four days of rest, we shall have 
twenty-two-days. For the passage across from Troas) we will take, ac- 
cording to Acts 20: 6, five days, although on another occasion Paul 
(Acts 16: 11), seems to have accomplished this journey in two days; 
for the distance from Troas to Ephesus we will take as much time as 
Paul required to go to Miletus, viz. four days. Thus the whole amount 
is thirty-one days. Hence, if he left Ephesus at the beginning of 
March, he arrived at Corinth sometime in the first week of April. 
Whichsoever route, then, he chose, he reached the place of his destina~ 
tion before Easter. 


§ 105. 


The Epistle relates principally to the faults of the adherents of Paul, 
and would seem to have been intended only for them. They had them- 
selves written to the apostle, and acknowledged his authority. He 
therefore occupies himself almost entirely with the faults of the anti- 
Jewish party, nearly neglecting to say any thing of those of the party in- 
clined to Judaism. 

The Epistle may be divided into three sections. ‘The first relates to 
what he had learned by the messages from Chloe; the second to what 
he had heard from other sources; and the last to what had been writ- 
ten to him by the Corinthians themselves. 

With reference to the information he had received from Chloe (1: 
11), he exhorts them to unity, and thanks God that he himself had giv- 
en no occasion for the formation of parties. He avers that though 


1 Liv. L. XXXVII. ς. 17. L. XLIV. οἱ 45. 

2 Vet. Rom. Itiner. sive Antonini Itinerarium etc. Ed. Wesseling. p.- 
326—328. 

3 P. 320—21. Xerxes fled from Salamis across the Hellespont in less than 
thirty days (Cor. Nep. in Themist. c.5),and Agesilaus with an army reached 
Beotia across the Hellespont in the same time (Idem, in Agesil. c. 4). 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 529 


he had indeed preached without the arts of oratory or any parade 
of learning, he had declared the unadulterated truth of God. Paul 
and Apollos (and the same is understood of other heads of parties) are 
alike only servants of God and of the Gospel, each of whom will receive 
his reward according to his desert; and, if preference is due to any, it 
rather belongs to the first messengers of the faith than to subsequent 
teachers. 

With reference to what he had learned from other sources (5: 1), he 
enjoins upon them not to tolerate abominable incest, but to deliver over 
the transgressor to Satan (—5: 9). They are toshun those in the church 
who are licentious and immoral, never to bring their controversies before 
heathen tribunals (—6: 11), and to walk worthy of the interest which 
they have in Christ (—7: 1). 

He then replies to the letter (7: 1). He cannot approve of the conti- 
nence of married persons ; nor of one party’s separating from the other on 
the pretext of unbelief. Single persons, who cannot contain themselves, 
‘should marry (—7: 18). Those who have been circumcised should use 
no art to create a foreskin anew; and, in general, each one should be 
content with his condition (—7: 25). 

To single persons his advice is that they should remain single; not 
because it is sinful to marry; on the contrary, it is even well to do so; 
but times will come when it may be desirable for one to live indepen- 
dent, that he may not be drawn away by his connexions into infidelity to 
religion (—-8:). 

It is true that an idol is nothing, and that there is no difference be- 
tween meats offered in sacrifice and other meats; but, if a weak brother 
be offended, his weakness should be respected; and none should by 
any means be present at the feasts in the temples (—9: 1). 

Here the apostle digresses, and asserts the purity of his purposes and 
his doctrine, appealing to his disinterestedness, which entirely acquit- 
ted him of views of private advantage. His reward and consideration 
were God and Christ (—9: 27). 

He then makes a transition again to idolatry, draws attention to the 
example of the fathers, and to the incompatibility of idolatry with Chris- 
tianity (—10: 23), and recommends anew a scrupulous regard to the con- 
science of a weak brother (—11:). 

He tells them that, for the sake of propriety in religious worship, the 
women should be covered in their assemblies, and be silent (—11: 17). 

The Lord’s supper is a memorial of our Lord’s death; every one 
should eee partake of it with a conscience void of offence (LI: 
17—12:). . 

Each one should use the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of all; 
for they were not given for individuals, but for the advantage of all. 
All form but one body, of which each is a member, and every member 
should conduce to the benefit of the whole body. These gifts, howev- 
er, are to be esteemed as nothing in comparison with the law of love 
and peace (—14:). 

In regard to the resurrection, he says he has informed them distincet- 
ly that Jesus rose from the dead, that he appeared to James and Cephas, 
and to more than five hundred brethren at once, and lastly to him also ; 
and declares that Jesus ΝΗ raise all to glory or shame, according to 

7 


530 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


their deserts (—16:). Finally, he enjoins it upon them to make a char- 
itable collection among themselves for their indigent brethren in Pal- 
estine. 


§ 106. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Paul abode some time longer at Ephesus, but sent 'Timotheus and 
Erastus through Macedonia to Corinth (Acts 19: 22. 1 Cor. 16: 10). 
Thither, likewise, he sent Titus, who was commissioned to observe the 
impression and effect produced by the apostle’s letter, and to give him 
information which might direct his future measures (2 Cor. 2: 18. 7: 6— 
16), and likewise to superintend the collection for the poor (8: 6). 
When Paul departed from Ephesus to go through Macedonia and 
Achaia, he expected to find Titus at Troas, returning from his com- 
mission {2 Cor. 2:18). He did not meet with him, however, till he 
reached Macedonia (7: 5), where he obtained from him joyful news as 
to of success of his Epistle and of the measures he had taken (7: 7, 
8, 9). 

Tt was, however, in general, only those of Paul’s party, who appeared 
repentant, submissive, and ready to amend; the Judaizing party, on the 
contrary, only sought to discover in his Epistle materials for a new at- 
tack upon his character. 

The apostle had several times, particularly in this Epistle, promised 
to visit them (1 Cor. 4: 19, 20, 21. 16: 4 seq.), and had not yet fulfilled 
his promise. They therefore charged him with fickleness and an un- 
stable disposition, and took occasion thence to cast suspicion upon his 
doctrines (2 Cor. 1: 15—2:), and to accuse him of obscurity and indefi- 
niteness in his teaching (—4: 7). 

Moreover, as the letter was replete with earnestness, severity, and en- 
ergy, they instituted a comparison of it with his procedure in other cir- 
cumstances, and observed that it was true he had courage to make use 
of such language, when he was at a distance, and was not looking peo- 
ple in the face, but in other circumstances he was much more complai- 
sant, and was content to use a more indulgent tone (2 Cor. 10: 9, 10). 

Paul, in order to show the disinterested rectitude of his preaching and 
doctrines, had reminded the Corinthians, that he had in no instance 
sought his own advantage, had even refused the wages which were his 
due, and had endured the toils of instruction and encountered danger 
and persecution only from a sense of duty and for the cause of Jesus (1 
Cor. 9:9seq.). This was in truth an overwhelming argument, and his 
adversaries could not suffer its validity to continue unimpaired. In or- 
der to invalidate it, it would seem, they, likewise, wholly renounced 
wages or remuneration, that they might in this respect be on equal 
terms with the messenger of truth (2 Cor. 1: 12, 13, 14). Moreover, 
the collections for the poor afforded them a pretext for attacking his 
disinterestedness ; particularly the collection-which had been requested 
in his Epistle, which was now going forward under the direction of 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 531 


Titus. They declared that this was the way in which he always plun- 


dered one church, in order for a time to appear disinterested in another 
(2 Cor. 11: 7 seq. 12: 15—17). 


§ 107. 


All this Paul learned from Titus, whom he met in Macedonia (2 Cor. 
7: 5). In order to prevent the occurrence of any unpleasant scenes on 
his arrival at Corinth, to the prejudice of his success and authority, he 
resolved to refute these slanders, to confirm the declarations he had al- 
ready made, and to prepare their minds more thoroughly for his coming. 
He therefore sent them a second Epistle, which, as ‘Timothy was with 
him (2 Cor. 1: 1), was probably written in Macedonia, in the fourth 
year of Nero’s reign. 

He first mentions his sufferings, and particularly his late perils in Asia 
(—1: 12). He then speaks of his repeated purpose of coming to them 
through Macedonia, which purpose remained always unaltered, al- 
though he had been obliged to delay its execution out of tenderness to 
them, and partly, also, that he might not come sorrowing, but with joy. 
He forgives the individual who had most grieved him, and wishes him to 
be again received in love (—2: 12). He then touches upon the state of 
his mind at Troas, and speaks of the consolations afforded him by God 
on account of the sincerity of his intentions (—2:). He needs no let- 
ters of recommendation to them; their sentiments and the ministry to 
which God had called him are his recommendation; not a Mosaic min- 
istry, but one which was spiritual and far more exalted; on which ac- 
count he preaches with plainness, and none find his doctrine obscure 
but those who shut their eyes against the light (—4: 7). He is indeed 
a man, as he deeply feels from the troubles which encompass him, 
which, however, he can endure, being supported by the hopes of a fu- 
ture life (—5: L1). His conscience acquits him; he had conducted 
towards them in love; and, as Christ by his death had reconciled the 
world to God, he had always kept in mind that he was an ambassador 
for the purpose of reconciliation, and in all things he had approved 
himself a servant of God. (—6: 11). Here he inserts a warning against 
idolatry (—7: 2). 

He then makes a transition to Titus, and the consolation which he 
had brought him. He now laments that he had caused them sorrow ; 
still, the result has been a joyful one (-—7: 16). The Macedonians had 
outstripped them in the work of benevolence; he hopes they will not re- 
main behind-hand; wherefore he sends Titus to them with two very 
estimable companions. He doubts not their readiness to relieve the 
necessities of their poorer brethren (—10:). 

In the tenth chapter, he recurs to his own justification, and defends 
himself against the charges of his enemies; viz. that Paul, when pres- 
ent, was indulgent, and had courage to be severe only when he was at 
a distance ; that, though he took no stated recompense, he yet collected 
money inthe churches. He then draws a parallel between himself, in 
his apostolic office, and these false teachers, which he pursues with 
much spirit as far 12: 19. He even fears, he continues, (1. 6. from this 


532 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


quarter) scandalous conduct, which, however unwillingly, he must treat 
with severity. He concludes with the customary salutations.' 

Such are the mere skeletons of these two masterly compositions. If, 
bringing before our minds the situation in which they were composed, 
we attentively examine their contents, we are compelled to admire both 
the wisdom of their general plan and the management of particular 
points. Wecan do no otherwise than honour such prudence, love such 
good-will, and observe with pleasure every manifestation of his feelings, 
the dignity in reproof, the propriety in entreaty, the just proportion of 
praise and encouragement, the changes in his emotions, the transition 
from severity to sympathy and from rebuke to commiseration, from 
an affectionate manner to an energetic and terrible tone, and, in par- 
ticular, the knowledge of human nature and the prudence in managing 
difficult matters, which are displayed in their contents. 


§ 108. 


In order to justify the opinion as to the character of these Epistles 
which I have formed from the examination I have made, I must not leave 
them without defending the second from some unmerited charges. It 
has been pretended that it wants methodical arrangement, a regular 
course of thought, and proper connexion. Hence some, as is generally 
the cause, have taken a step further, and attempted to get rid of particu- 
lar parts of the Epistle, as not consistent with the idea they had adopt- 
ed in regard to the extent of its plan, and as having been added subse- 
quently.'| The introduction is occupied with the apostle’s personal for- 
tunes, purposes, feelings, and wishes, as far as the third chapter. The 
remainder divides itself into three parts, together with a conclusion. 

In the first part, he declares himself to be a minister of the New 
Testament, in which character he exercises a διακονία of a spiritual 
nature, far more exalted than the Mosaic; not with craft and wily ob- 
scurity, but forthe purpose of enlightening men, according to the light 
which is revealed by Jesus Christ (—4: 7). Yet he bears about this 
treasure in an earthen vessel ; he is a man, pursuing this his calling un- 
der every species of human suffering, only enjoying the πέστες that, 
when he shall have left this earthy tabernacle, areward awaits him in a 
better mansion (—5: 11). From reverence for God, and in accordance 
with the example of Jesus Christ, who died for all to reconcile them to 
God, he has taken upon himself a διακονία καταλλαγῆς, a ministry of 
reconciliation (—6:), a dvaxovia without reproach, which he prosecutes 
with constancy under all afflictions, as the διάκονος of God (—6: 11). 
All that he here says of the dignity of his calling, with reference to his 
Judaizing opponents and their reproaches, of his ministry of reconcilia- 
tion and justification, its troubles and rewards, constitutes one section, 
in which the thought, though interrupted by parentheses according to 
Paul’s custom, always recurs to his dvazxovia. ‘The first important di- 
gression is 6: 11—7: 2, the warning against idolatry. 

After this, he makes a transition to Titus, the consolation which he 


1 All the literature of this subject will be found completely presented, as usu- 
al, in Bertholdt’s ‘* Einleit. in die Schriften des N. T.” Th. 6. § 727. Some aca- 
demic writings which he cites, 1 have unfortunately nover seen. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 533 


brought him, the effects of his Epistle, which he describes ; then speaks 
of the collection ; of the good example set by the Macedonians; then 
of asecond commission as to this matter undertaken by Titus, and sub- 
joins an exhortation, which he acknowledges is indeed superfluous 
(—9: 15). This section begins with a mention of Titus, is connected 
with what is said in relation to him, recurs to him again at last, and 
forms a second coherent whole, the occasion of which was the collec- 
tion enjoined in the Ist Ep. 16: 1—6. It was not written any later 
than what precedes, viz. a short time after the apostle’s meeting with 
Titus (7: 6—13). 

But least of all could we dispense with the third part, the refutation 
of the accusations of his enemies, which he commences with the tenth 
chapter. ‘The adherents of Paul and Apollos had yielded to reason, 
but those who called themselves by the name of Christ, πεποιϑότες 
ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἶναι (10: 7), had vented reproaches in regard to 
the severity of the Epistle, the collections of money, and the unfulfilled 
promises. They were to be disarmed, humbled, and deprived of power 
to do injury, before Paul could appear at Corinth. ‘This part, the most 
essential to the preservation of his dignity, proceeds in so natural a man- 
ner throughout, that nothing can be objected against its unity. All in 
the section is apposite to his purpose, and a part of it (as e.g. 11: 18-- 
12: 1) is masterly, in quibus maxime, to use Cicero’s expression, exul- 
tat oratio. 

What can be said in depreciation of this plan? The first part is the 
general justification of Paul, drawn from the nature of his office, the 
manner in which he exercised it, and his constant struggle with every 
species of suffering, for which no temporal advantage could indemnify 
him. The second part relates to the news brought by Titus, and the 
collection for the poor which was under his management. The third 
part consists of a special justification of himself in regard to particular 
charges, and the complete humiliation of his remaining enemies. 
What is there in all this that is superfluous, and what that is deficient ? 
How can want of order and connexion be alleged, when there is but a 
single important digression, and that occurs between the first and the 
second parts ? 

Is it meant that there ought to have been no breaks, though the sub- 
jects to be treated were various and consequently the discussion was 
naturally divided into several heads? Is it not evidence of judg- 
ment, that the second part is inserted between the general and special 
justification of himself, lest, if the same subject were pursued to great 
length, it should become tedious? And ought not the part which was 
most eloquent, and most important to his purpose, to be at the close, in 
order to consummate the general impression? Had the second part been 
appended to this, it would have been even tame and inoperative, after 
such a lofty effort. 

Still it is objected, that the tone of the first part is very different from 
that of the third; the former is mild, affectionate, and cordial, while the 
latter is severe, vehement, and reckless. But who would divide the 
oration of Demosthenes Pro corond into two pieces, because in his 
general defence, calmness and circumspection predominate, while, on 
the other hand, in abashing and scourging his accuser, in the parallel 


534 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


between himself and Aischines, words of bitter and taunting import fall 
like a thunder-shower, in impetuous effusions? There is no species of 
discourse which does not admit οἵ. ἃ rise; and is it possible that in such 
discourse as this, the language should flow on as softly and smoothly as 
in the quiet statement of an argument? What philologist would require 
that Paul should no-where rise in the style of his discourse, under pen- 
alty of having that part of it abstracted from the rest ? 

All that can be said with any colour of reason is, that in the first few 
chapters the points treated of are not always kept distinct, the cause of 
which has been properly looked for in the apostle’s deep emotion.! 


§ 109. 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Paul went from Ephesus to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind him 
(1 Tim. 1: 3); and soon after wrote this Epistle. ‘The apostle was at 
Ephesus twice ; on which occasion did this occur ? 

After his first visit to this city (Acts 18: 19—23), he went to Jerusa- 
lem, and the departure to Macedonia mentioned in this Epistle cannot 
have taken place then. 

The other visit to Ephesus is related in Acts 19: 1—41. After a long 
residence here, he was obliged to leave the city on account of an uproar, 
and then departed to go into Macedonia (Acts 20: 1 seq.). The Epistle 
was written on this occasion, between the first and the second to the 
Corinthians. 

'l'o suppose, for the purpose of this Epistle, a later visit of the apostle 
to Ephesus, in addition to the two mentioned in the Acts, one undertaken, 
perhaps, after his imprisonment at Rome, is forbidden by the circum- 
stances. Among other things lying at the foundation of this Epistle, is 
the fact, that the teachers and elders of the church, who should conduct its 
affairs, had not yet been appointed. Now,a few months after, when 
Paul returned to Asia from his Macedonian journey, this had been done ; 
as he sent for the elders from Ephesus to Miletus, that he might see 
them in their new calling, and represent and enforce the duties of the 
office they had assumed (Acts 20: 17—28 seq.). The Epistle must, 
therefore, have preceded this occurrence. 

Well-founded and entirely correct as all this is, there is still an appa- 
rent difficulty inthe way. Before Paul went from Ephesus to Macedo- 
nia, he sent thither Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19: 22); now how could 
Timothy have remained behind at Ephesus? 

He sent ‘Titus to Corinth, also; and yet, though he was commis- 
sioned to remark the conduct of the church and the effect of his Epis- 
tle, and to make arrangements in regard to the collection (§ 106), 
he expected to meet fim again at Troas (2 Cor. 2: 12). Much more 
easily could Timothy, who had no commission to detain him (ᾧ 104), - 
have reached Paul before his departure, as directed (1 Cor. 16: 11). 


1 Kichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. IIId Bd. 1st Halfte, § 225. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 535 


But the difficulty, it may be said, lies in the fact, that though the apos- 
tle had determined to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8), he 
was unexpectedly compelled by an uproar to leave the city sooner (Acts 
19: 23seq.). Supposing that he was expelled before Pentecost, it can be 
proved that Timothy might have arrived before thattime. If he pre- 
ferred a voyage, as the favorable season of the year would lead us to sup- 
pose, he was only sixteen days in returning (§ 104). Now supposing him 
to have set out on the third day after the passover, from which day the 
fifty days to Pentecost were reckoned, he arrived at Ephesus thirty-four 
days before Pentecost. If he decided to go round by way of Macedonia 
and Troas, he arrived at Ephesus in thirty-one days, nineteen before Pen- 
tecost. In either case he must have arrived a considerable time before 
the feast. Now who can prove that he notwithstanding arrived too late? 
On the contrary, we see that Paul did not meet with him at Troas, or 
in Macedonia. It was only Titus whom he encountered on his route ; 
_and concerning this meeting he repeatedly expresses his joy in the sec- 
ond Epistle to the Corinthians, without making even the most distant 
allusion to such a happy meeting with Timothy. Nor was the apostle 
expelled from Ephesus so much earlier than it was his intention to leave 
the city, that Timothy could not have found him there when he arrived. 
There was so little difference in point of time, that, notwithstanding 
this occurrence, he counted upon finding Titus at Troas, the place 
which he had appointed (2 Cor. 2: 12). If, now, the difference of time 
was not so great as to force him to renounce the idea of meeting Titus 
at the place appointed, it must have been trifling; it cannot by any 
means have amounted to nineteen days, which time must have remain- 
ed before Pentecost, after Timothy’s arrival at Ephesus, even if he took 
the most circuitous way thither. 

Paul, therefore, might have left him in this city, when he was com- 
pelled to save himself by flight, and have given him the commissions 
which the Epistle contains. As soon as they were executed, however, 
Timothy sought the apostle, with whom we find him soon after, when 
the second Epistle to the Corinthians was written (2 Cor. 1: 1). 

The Epistle to Titus,as we have said, was written on Paul’s first 
arrival at Ephesus; and this, which bears so much resemblance to it, 
was written, after his expulsion from Ephesus, three years and some 
weeks later than the former. 


§ 110. 


But, it is objected, can Timothy so soon have left the place assigned 
him? Would he venture to doso without being called away? For, 
supposing that every thing else which the Epistle required had been ac- 
complished, he was appointed further to watch the false teachers. 
True; but let us be careful not to give the expression παραγχγείλῃς (1 
Tim. 1: 3), “ that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other 
doctrine” etc., a more extensive sense than belongs to it. Besides, he 
is directed not to engage in any discussions with them (4: 7). 

Be this as it may, when the question is asked, Could Timothy have 
left his station so soon ? we may ask in return, Could he remain any 
longer with safety? Paul’s life was in danger when he left Ephesus 


536 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


(2 Cor. 1: 8, 9), and Timothy was his accomplice in every thing charg- 
ed against him (Acts 19: 24—41:). Now, if the apostle’s enemies had 
discovered that he was in the city, as they must have done soon, was it 
possible for him to remain any longer? And if this was not advisable, 
what else should we expect him to do, but to make all the arrangements 
that time permitted, and then hasten to the apostle, with whom we soon 
find him. 

But, supposing him to have finished his business at Ephesus, can he 
have had time to reach Paul in Macedonia? Paul had determined, as 
we must repeat once more, to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor. 
16: 21); but was driven from the city before that time, and departed 
by way of Macedonia to Greece (Acts 20: 1,2). Here he resided for 
some time. He departed thence on the arrival of spring; and it was 
Easter before he reached Asia again (Acts 20: 6). The whole period 
of his absence from Asia, therefore, was from Pentecost to Easter, i. e. 
one year lacking fifty days, or, in other words, something more than ten 
months. Three months of this time he abode in Greece (Acts 20: 3), 
viz. the winter months; for when the season began to be favorable he 
set out on his return, and at Easter had arrived again at Philippi (Acts 
20: 6). Thus Paul’s journey from Ephesus to Greece, where he passed 
the winter (μῆνας τρεῖς, which were probably November, December, 
and January), consumed all the time from Pentecost to November, i. e. 
four whole months ; leaving outof the account the time by which his de- 
parture from Ephesus preceded Pentecost, the period at which he in- 
tended to leave the city. 

Hence, if Timothy staid two months at Ephesus, he would have, 
leaving out of account the supernumerary days, two months still remain- 
ing, to overtake the apostle in Macedonia. If, however, on account of 
impending danger, he did not think himself safe in Ephesus so long, his 
journey to Macedonia gains all that is to be subtracted from his stay in 
Ephesus. The whole matter is so plain, that we cannot comprehend 
the calculation which has recently been made the basis of a contrary 
opinion.! 

The Epistle to Timothy must have been one of the first cares of the 
apostle ; for otherwise it was to be feared that the directions according 
to which Timothy was to proceed would not reach him till after his busi- 
ness was finished. It was written, therefore, about the time of Pente- 
cost, in the fourth year of Nero, or the fifty-ninth of the Christian era. 


§ 111. 


Ephesus, where Timothy was to act as the apostle’s deputy, was the 
capital of the province of Asia, and, from its happy position, the largest 
and most important commercial place within the Taurus; and, at the 
time when Christianity took its rise, it was daily becoming more and more 
celebrated.2 All the splendor of its other structures was cast into the 
shade by the temple of Diana, reckoned by the ancients among the 


1 Eichhorn, Einl. in das Ν. T. 1Π4 Bd. Ist Halfte, § 248, p. 342, 343. 


2 Strabo L. XIV. Ed. 1maCasaub. p. 441. and 2da Casaub. p. 642. Seneca, 
Epist. CII. ‘“Ephesum aut Alexandriam, aut si quod est etiamnum frequentius 
incolis, latius tectis solum.” 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 537 


wonders of the world. Wealth, not to mention other causes, occasioned 
luxury and effeminacy. In the days of Nero this city is described as 
not only voluptuous but arrogant; so that the overbearing manners of 
its inhabitants did not correspond with their refinement in other respects.' 
A propensity to nice and studied attire, and a love for trinkets and fine- 
ry, are represented as traits of character not exclusively confined to the 
female sex.” 

The Jewish Christians, who inhabited the city, did not exhibit much 
good-will towards Paul, during his residence in it; and the other be- 
lievers adhered a long time to magical doctrines and arts (Acts 19: 8, 18, 
19). Besides these faults, it appears from other sources that the people 
of these regions were far from being so strict in regard to the duties of 
the marriage state, even after adopting Christianity, as Christianity re- 
quired (Eph. 5: 22—33. Coloss. 3: 18—21). Inparticular, however, as 
the apostle’s preaching inculcated such benevolent principles, and pro- 
claimed with such distinctness the equality of all men in the sight of 
God and Christ, pretensions were set up by an indolent class of men, 
which it was necessary to restrain. For the slaves were too prone to 
extend these principles of equality and brotherhood in the sight of God, 
to the service of their masters and the common affairs of life, and main- 
tained in their hearts a moral bellum servile (Eph. 6: 5—10. Coloss. 3: 
22—4: 2). 

Such was pretty nearly the state of things at Ephesus, when Paul was 
unexpectedly compelled to leave the city in haste. It is natural to sup- 
pose, therefore, that the arrangements which were necessary in case of 
his departure had not yet been made. He had hitherto directed the 
whole course of affairs himself, without having yet, to judge from his let- 
ter, appointed persons to perform thenceforward the functions of the 
ministry and administer the concerns of the church. Still he does not 
commit their appointment to Timothy, but merely gives him superin- 


tendence of their election, and communicates directions to guide them 
in discharging their duties. 


§ 112. 


With reference to this state of things, which we have thus imperfect- 
ly described, we find in the Epistle an excellent arrangement and an 
orderly succession in regard to the subjects discussed. ‘The intro- 
duction is as follows: Warn against heretical fables ; and, likewise, in 
regard to the law, which rightly understood is indeed good, but, ac- 
cording to our doctrine, was made only for the wicked, of the number 
of whom I also was, until I was saved by Christianity, as all sinners 
must be.—And now the first of his religious directions is prayer ; in re- 
gard to which on behalf of heathen magistrates, scruples existed among 
those lately converted from Judaism (2: 1—9). He then states, after a 
short rebuke of female vanity, the part which women should act in the 
affairs of the church (2: 9—15), and enumerates the qualifications which 
were to be possessed by persons who should obtain the office of the 


1 Philostrat. in Vit. Apoll. Tyan. L. VIII. c. 3.L.1V.c. 1. 
2 Atheneus, Deipnos. L. XII. c. 29, Schweigh. 
68 


538 PAUL’8 EPISTLES. 


ministry or any ecclesiastical superintendence, by elders, deacons, and 
deaconesses (—3: 14). He then passes, after a concise statement of 
the orthodox doctrine in regard to the person of Christ (3: 14—4: 1), 
to false tenets, and points out the doctrines which he is to inculcate 
in opposition to them (—4: 12). Herewith he connects counsels relat- 
ing to Timothy himself (—5:), describes the deportment due to those 
who should be appointed elders, the proper conduct towards widows, 
and the measures which should be pursued in regard to them (—5: 17). 
He then speaks of the wages of the elders, of the method of procedure 
when complaints should be brought against them, and of circumspec- 
tion in ordaining them (—5: 22). Then, after a digression extending to 
6: 1, he admonishes the slaves; and, finally, subjoins exhortations to ‘Tim- 
othy himself, and particular warnings and advice for believers generally. 


§ 19. 


This Epistle has recently met with a distinguished opponent, who 
flatly denies that it was written by the apostle, and attributes it to some 
unknown author.'! Several of his arguments, as e.g. that Timothy, @ 
short time after he is said to have received this pretended letter of the 
apostle containing commissions of so difficult a character, is found a- 
gain at Paul’s side, and another, which this learned man thinks he finds 
in the evident want of order and connexion (p. 152 seq.), we have 
already obviated ; there are several others, however, which we will now 
take into consideration. 

The language, says this opponent of the Epistle, is not Paul’s. To 
prove this, he collects (from the beginning to p. 76) expressions which 
do not occur in either of the other Epistles of Paul, or at least not in 
the same sense. But it is so, more or less, in regard to other Epistles, 
likewise ; nor do I know how it can be required of Paul that he should not 
in any one of his Epistles use words which he has not already used in 
some other, or should exhaust his whole stock of expressions in every one 
of them. Still, some of the expressions are at least New-Testament ex- 
pressions ; as e. g. νομοδιδάσκαλος, τπιρεσβυτέριον, ἄσπιλος, περίεργος, 
ἀπωϑεῖσϑαι τὴν πίστιν, τὸν Aoyov, etc. Others, which are character- 
ized by a bold composition or self-derivation, and in which the oppo- 
nent of this Epistle perceives a desire for novelty, as e. g. ἑτεροδιδασ-- 
καλεῖν, ἀγαϑοεργεῖν, εὐμετάδοτος, διλόγος, Oewxrngietc., clearly evince, 
in this very characteristic, their Pauline origin; for Paul was in the habit 
of forming peculiar words and emphatic expressions, to the total neglect 
of grammatical laws, in such a manner as the tragedians themselves 
would hardly have ventured to do; e. g. καλοδιδάσκαλος, ἀφελάγαϑος, 
ὀρϑοποδεῖν, αὐτοκατάκριτος, ὁλοϑρευτής.3 


1 Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein 
kritisches Sendschreiben an J. C. Gass,” by F. Schleiermacher, Prof. at Halle 
etc. Berlin, 1807. 8vo. 

2 At the time when I was preparing the first edition of this Introduction, the 
learned son of the celebrated Henry Planck was engaged in writing a refutation 
of Schleiermacher's letter : “‘ Bemerkungen dber den ersten Paulinischen Brief 
an den Timotheus, in Beziehung auf das krit. Sendschreiben von H. Pr. Fr. 
Schleiermacher.” Géttingen, 1808. A subject which I could treat only ina 
general manner, is in this work carefully analyzed and developed with exe- 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 539 


If, in addition to this peculiarity, we examine the diction generally, 
we shall find that it is Pauline. The accumulation of words of kindred 
signification, or false synonymes, the enumerations, the sudden and 
brief digressions, the parentheses, particularly the large one from 1: 5— 
18, and the ardor which prevails throughout—all this, taken together, 
is not like a mere imitation as to the use of certain words, which might 
be successfully attempted by any one, but is an exact exhibition of 
Paul’s peculiar mode of communication. 

To compare, as has been done, the first Epistle to Timothy with the 
second and with the Epistle to Titus, because their topics are some- 
times the same, and then, from the fact that the same thought or ex- 
pression has in one of them a different turn from that which it has in 
another, to infer that it was a plagiarism committed by some one who 
did not understand Paul thoroughly (see p. 78 seq.), is somewhat hasty. 
It is Paul’s custom, when he repeats thoughts and figures in different 
Hpistles, to give them, as far as possible, a different turn, that they may 
at least have some degree of novelty, and may not be bare repetitions. 
Not to discuss particular passages, let any one take the Epistles to the 
Ephesians and Colossians, and observe his procedure in discussing the 
same subjects, and how strongly my remark is confirmed by the fact, 
both as to the thought and language. By the paralogism referred to, 
it would not be at all difficult, in like manner, assuming either of these 
two Epistles to be genuine, to destroy the credit of the other, and prove 
it to be a counterfeit, the author of which frequently did not compre- 
hend Paul, and has been unsuccessful, and even obscure, in imitating 
his phraseology. 

The grave objections which are urged against the Hpistle (p. 104d— 
11:3), founded on the circumstance that he mentions Hymenzus and 
Alexander so cursorily (1: 20), are no objections at all. He mentions 
them, in passing, as well-known examples of unfortunate self-conceit, 
and for no other purpose. Similar instances occur in another Epistle, 
written about the same time, viz. ὦ Tim. 1: 15, and 2: 17, where, like- 
wise, he refers to notorious examples (οἶδας τοῦτο) of error, as a warn- 
ing to others, and, as in the other case, in a slight, cursory way: ὧν 
ἐστι Diyshhos καὶ ᾿δρμογένης, and ὧν ἐστον ᾿ Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος. 

But here a new difficulty occurs. In the first Epistle to Timothy, 
Hymenzus and Alexander are united ; in the second, however, Hyme- 
neus and Philetus occur together, and Alexander is not mentioned till 
afierwards, and then not as a heretic (2 ΤΊ μη. 4: 14); a proof that the 
author of the first Epistle confounded different persons through igno- 
rance.—The Alexander mentioned in 2 Tim, 4: 14 was not indeed a 
heretic; Paul designates him by the epithet, ὁ χαλκεύς, the smith, or 
worker in metal; and he appears to have been the Alexander mention- 
ed in Acts 19: 33, who now appears here as one of Paul’s accusers be- 
before the Roman tribunal. But can there not have been another 
Alexander, a heretic? or, indeed, since this name was so common, 
many hundred Alexanders? It may, however, be asked, Why in the 
first Epistle is he mentioned with Hymenzus, as his companion in er- 
ror, while in the second he is not, and Philetus occupies his place? 


getical accuracy, passage by passage, in reference to each expression and its sig- 
nification, as bearing marks of Pauline origin. 


540 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


But I ask in return, Was it absolutely and unalterably requisite, that 
they should invariably be mentioned together? Or was this Alex- 
ander immortal, so that he must always be reckoned amiong the liv- 
ing examples of perversity 17 Or was he so incorrigible, that he could 
never cease to be what he was once? Or cannot Hymenzus have so 
extended and altered his system, that Alexander might come to dif- 
fer from him in opinion, and no longer be associated with him? Where 
there are so many possibilities, all equally probable, am I authorized to 
assume any one at pleasure as fact, and’ deduce inferences from it? 
Let us, however, examine Paul once more. Inthe first Epistle to Timo- 
thy, he speaks of heretics whom he had excommunicated, without en- 
tering particularly into their tenets, and names Hymenzus and Alexan- 
der (i: 20); but in the second, while inculcating the doctrine of our 
Lord’s resurrection, and our own resurrection in connexion with it (2: 
8—16), his subject leads him to a particular sect of heretics, who main- 
tained that the resurrection of mankind had already taken place, and he 
names the authors of this tenet, viz.) Hymeneus and Philetus (2: 17). 
The two cases, therefore, are different; Alexander might be included in 
the first, without being also liable to the charges in the second. 

Lastly, it is objected (p. 124 seq.), that heretics, on whose ac- 
count, according to the first Epistle, he had left Timotheus behind him 
at Ephesus, are spoken of by Paulin Acts 20: 29—31, some months 
after the composition of the Epistle, as though they were not yet in ex- 
istence ; he speaks in the future tense, as though they were to arise 
hereafter. But this is the view, also, which is exhibited in the first 
Epistle to Timothy ; Paul is apprehensive in regard to the future, ἐν 
ὑστέροις καιροῖς, in which heretics would make their appearance, ac- 
cording to the express declarations of the Spirit (4: 1 seq.). Those 
whose purposes were already well-known, such as Hymenzus and Al- 
exander, were expelled from the church (1: 20). There were oth- 
ers, however, who concealed their inclination to peculiar opinions, 
and were not bold enough to-avow them openly, or to inculcate them at 
all, ἑτεροδιδασκεῖν, though their disposition to accord with other teachers 
(for that is the meaning ‘of ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, i. 6. ἑτέροις διδασκάλοις 
προσέχειν, alienus magistros sectari) did not escape the penetration of 
the apostle. He uses, directly afterward, the perfectly definite expres- 
sion, προσέχειν--μύϑοις. The word προσέχεεν does not signify to teach, 
but to give assent, to approve, προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν , THY γνώμην. On this 
account, Timothy received no severer injunctions in regard to them, 
than to admonish them, παραγγέλλειν, and, if such foolish questions were 
started (4: 7), to reject all discussion of them, παραιτεῖσϑαι. Moreover, 
the apostle himself takes no steps against them, but contents himself, 
in the principal passage relating to them, with calling to mind for their 
benefit the examples of Hymenzus and Alexander. There were not, 
therefore, at present, any avowed false teachers in the church, but the 
danger was, that such would spring up on the first opportunity, unless 
they were under restraint from higher authority. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 541 


§ 114. 


᾿ 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


Who first preached Christianity in Rome, is not known ; but it is 
certain that Andronicus and Junius were among the earliest missiona- 
ries or promoters of the faith (Rom. 16:7). There was Rufus, too, 
probably the same whose father assisted in bearing Christ’s cross (Rom. 
16: 13. Mark 15:21), and Herodion, and others, formerly Jews, who 
labored to extend the faith. For here, also, Christianity was intro- 
duced through the synagogues, and made so rapid progress, that when 
Paul wrote to the Romans, their faith was celebrated throughout the 
whole Christian world (Rom. 1: 8). 

The Jews in Rome were very numerous; they had a large portion of 
the city on the other side of the Tiber to themselves. The greater part 
of them were freedmen, who were carried prisoners to Rome under 
Pompey, and manumitted by their masters, because, from their Jewish 
customs and institutions, in which they steadfastly persisted, they were 
rather troublesome than profitable property to Roman masters. They 
built synagogues in the part of the city allotted tothem,! observed their 
sabbaths and religious meetings, and continued still so much attached 
to their temple and native land, that they annually sent thither valuable 
gifts and offerings.” 

Curiosity and other reasons frequently led the Roman ladies to attend 
the celebration of the sabbath, and to visit the synagogues. Ovid even 
refers the young gentlemen of his time thither, to the 


Cultaque Judo septima sacra Syro, 


to see the beauties of the city collected together. 

Many of them learned in this way to know and prize the religious 
ideas of the Jews, and became σέβομεναι and metuentes ; one of whom, 
named Fulvia, is mentioned by Josephus.? By degrees this inclination 
to Judaism was communicated to the men also, whose un-Roman opin- 
ions are wittily stated by the poet : 


Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem, 

Nil preter nubes, et celi numen adorant : 

Nee distare putant humana carne suillam, 

Qua pater abstinuit; mox et preputia ponunt. 
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt jus, 
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses.4 


1 Philo, Legat. ad Caiumn. p. 697. Ed. Turneb. 
2 Cicero, Pro Flacco. c. 28, 
3 Antiq. L. XVIII. c. 3. n. 5. 


4 Juvenal, Sat. XIV. v. 96 seq. Those, qui cali numen adorant, seem to be the 
same as those who are called in the Codex Theodosianus, ΕΙΣ and who are 
mentioned likewise in Justinian, Leg.7, Cod. de Judaicis et Ceelicolis, i. e. 
_ Judaizing heathen. 


542 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Now, when Christianity, likewise, was preached in the sabbath- 
assemblies, its doctrines were heard by heathen, and many of them ac- 
ceded to the new system, which, as a universal religion, discarded those 
vexatious singularities that Judaism enjoined, and inculcated a ration- 
al and spiritual worship of the feelings and actions, which could not but 
commend itself to enlightened men. ‘Thus originated a church in 
Rome, composed of Jewish and heathen converts to Christianity. 


§ 115. 


The Jews, at this period, were pretty generally expecting the Christ or 
Messiah ; but the ideas which they had of him restricted his mission 
and sphere of operation so exclusively to their own nation, that they 
thought it impossible for any one to share in the benefits he was to con- 
fer, unless he belonged to their number, at least as a proselyte. They 
expected him as a hero or king, who would elevate them to the rank of 
an independent nation, would render them formidable to the whole 
world by their victories, and deprive the Romans of their imperium or- 
bis terrarum. It was these expectations, in part, which incited in the 
east the resolution no longer to submit to oppression, to attempt resis- 
tance, and tocommence that desperate war, which, eleven years after 
Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, put an end to their national exis- 
tence and constitution.! 

These ideas concerning the Messiah were not very favorable to the 
heathen generally, and were particularly unpropitious to the Romans. 
In Rome, moreover, the Jews had some reasons for hostile feelings to- 
wards the government. Claudius, on his accession to the throne, had 
prohibited all large congregations of people, and among the rest, the re- 
ligious assemblies of the Jews; a grievance which they, naturally, 
could not bear with indifference.2 

When, therefore, at Rome, accounts of the appearance of the Mes- 
siah were received with increasing frequency from Palestine, it may 
easily have happened, that Christianity, contrary to its design, inflamed 
many minds, which were full of extravagant notions, and occasioned 
unseasonable sallies of discontent. The following passage in Suetonius 
seems to indicate something of this nature : ‘‘ Jud@os, impulsore Chres- 
to, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Romé expulit.”® 


1 Jos. B. J. VI.5. Acts XVII. 7. Sueton. in Vesp. c. 4. Tacit. Hist. L. V. e. 13. 
2 Dio Cass. L. LVIII. p. 459. Rob. Steph.—Ed. Wechel. L. LX. p. 669. 


3 Suetonius, in Vit. Claudii, c. 25. That the Romans made use of the word 
Chrestus for Christus, is beyond a doubt. They imagined it tobe the Greek 
word χρηστός, which they thus expressed, as is shown by all the Roman inscrip- 
tions in which the word CHRESTUS or CHRESTE occurs. It is with refer- 
ence to this idea of the Romans, that Justin, in his Larger Apology, remarks how 
unjust itis to persecute the Christians for their name, while, notwithstanding, 
they were called Χρηστοί, i.e. good men (Apol. Maj. p. 136. Ed. Rob. Steph. c. 
4). To this, too, reference is had in the words of Tertullian (Apologet. c. 3) : 
“Sed cum perperam Christianus pronunciatur a vobis . . . . de suavitate et be- 
nignitate compositum est,” where we must necessarily read Chrestianus, as no 
doubt Rigault has amended the passage, though I have not his edition at 
hand at this moment. The most express statement on this point is given by 
Lactantius (Div. Inst. L. IV. c. 17): “Nam Christus non proprium nomen est, 
sed nuncupatio potestatis et regni; sic enim Judei reges suosappellabant. Sed 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 543 


This passage is not however necessary to illustrate our Epistle, and 
our remarks upon it may be passed over by such as do not think that it 
merits a place here on any ground. Whatever may have been the 
cause, the Jews finally became so turbulent at Rome, that Claudius ex- 
pelled them from the city. The circumstance most deserving our no- 
tice in respect to this proscription is, that the Jewish Christians like- 
wise were comprehended in it. We have proof of this in the case of 
Aquila, who was banished from Rome, with the rest of the Jews, and, 
on this account, took up his residence at Corinth (Acts 18:2). Conse- 
quently, no distinction was then known between a Jew and a Jewish 
Christian. After the banishment of the Jewish Christians, the followers 
of Jesus at Rome were all converts from Paganism ; an observation to 
which we wish especial heed to be given. 

Aquila, however, it is objected, was not then a Christian. The nar- 
rative of Luke, it seems to me, indicates that he was; for had it been 
the case that he was converted by Paul, and not before, his conversion 
would (considering his subsequent serviceableness to Paul and to the 
Christian church generally) have been an occurrence no less deserving 
of notice, than that of others who embraced Christianity at the same 
time (Acts 18: 7, 8). 

Whatever may be thought on this point, however, I am still secure in 
my position, that in Rome at that time, the Jews and Jewish Christians 
were not yet so far distinguished from each other, that an exception 
would be made in favor of the latter, as to the edict issued against the 
Jews. How was it possible, that under Claudius, in the year in which 
Paul first introduced Christianity into Macedonia, and into Athens and 
Corinth, the Romans could have acquired such a knowledge of the 
new system, and its deviations from Judaism, that it should be publicly, 
and in the eye of the law, recognized as distinct from Judaism. Even 
several years after, when Paul wrote to the Jewish Christians at Rome, 
they themselves were not clear on this point, but were inclined to regard 
Christianity as a species of Judaism. The principal men, even, among 
the Jews in Rome, so late as the 8th year of Nero, had the idea, when 
Paul invited them to a conference, that it was a Jewish sect, αἵρέσες 
(Acts 28: 22), which, however, was every where spoken against; so 
that it would seem, the Jews and public authorities in Rome were led 
first, by the trial of the apostle, the accusations of his adversaries, and 
his replies, to understand that Christianity was a separate and peculiar 
religion. Lastly, if the words of Suetonius: “ Judaos, impulsore Chres- 
to, assidue tumultuantes Romd cxpulit,” refer to erroneous expecta- 
tions in regard to the Messiah, how can it be believed that the Jewish 
Christians, in particular, were exempted from the proscription? 


exponenda est hujus nominis ratio, propter ignorantiam eorum, qui cum immu- 
tata litterd Chrestum volunt dicere . . . . veteres χρίεσϑαι dicebant ungi,”’ etc. 
Orosius even read in his copy, “ impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Roma 
expulit,’’ and proceeds to say : “quod, utrum contra Christum tumultuantes coer- 
ceri et comprimi jusserit, an etiam Christianos simul velut cognate religionis 
homines voluerit expelli, nequaquam discernitur.”’ (Hist. L. VII. ο. 60). I finda 
treatise by Ammon, Super loc. Suetonii de vita Claud. c. 25, cited by others; 
but, unfortunately, I have not been able to get a sight of it. 


‘ - 


544 PAUL'S EPISTLES. 


τ 116. 


But, even in better times, when the converts from Judaism and heath- 
enism constituted together one religious community, there was much 
which was not very conducive to mutual concord. The aversion of 
the Jews towards the Romans may have been on many occasions more 
perceptible to the latter than was agreeable. 

In particular, however, the Jewish ideas in regard to the Messiah 
were so contracted, so entirely limited to their own nation, that they re- 
garded the heathen with little favor, as persons on whom the promises 
did not confer any title to their national blessings, and to whom no share 
in the privileges which belonged peculiarly to the children of Abra- 
ham could be granted, except they became proselytes, and then only 
by sufferance. 

They would have had stronger reason to contemn the degenerate 
Romans, had they themselves been better than they actually were; but 
still they did thus despise them (Rom. 1: 21—2: 3). The descriptions 
which we have of the manners of incomparably better times than those 
of Claudius and Nero, which exhibited a depravity that we are, fortunate- 
ly, scarce able to conceive, serve to convince us, thatone need not have 
been very virtuous in order to find many subjects of reprobation. We 
will subjoin one of these pictures, drawn at a comparatively pure period of 
Roman morals: “ Ex divitiis juventutem luxuria atque avaritia cum 
superbia invasere ; rapere, consumere, sua parvi pendere, aliena cupere, 
pudorem, pudicitiam, divina atque humana promiscua, nil pensi neque 
moderati habere . . . Sed lubido stupri, ganex, ceterique cultis non mi- — 
nor incesserat. Viri pati muliebria, mulieres pudicitiam in propatulo 
habere,”’ etc. 

The causes of variance, therefore, between the two parties, were am- 
ply important and numerous; and, if we have read the Epistle tothe Ro- 
mans witha moderate degree of attention, we shall readily recollect that 
its contents have been, in a great measure, determined by these causes. 


§ 117. 


Paul assures the Romans in his Epistle, that the intention of visiting 
them, which he had entertained for many years, had now become a fixed 
determination. A contribution had been made in Macedonia and Achaia; 
this he intended to carry to Jerusalem, and then he should take his way 
to ὌΝ to see them, and to go from Rome to Spain (Rom. 15: 23 
—30). 

When the apostle had made arrangements at Ephesus in regard to 
the affairs of the church at Corinth, he prepared to depart. Jé was his 
intention to go through Macedonia to Achaia. Thence he was going to 
Jerusalem ; and then, said he, I must also see Rome (Acts 19: 21). The 
circumstances, as thus represented in the Acts, and the purposes of the 
apostle, are in every respect the same which Paul mentions in his Epis- 
tle. Hence the Epistle was written at that period of his life, when, ac- 
cording to the Acts, he was in these circumstances and occupied with 
these projects. 


5 Ἴ 
PAUL’S EPISTLES. 545 


When Paul wrote, he had finished his affairs in Macedonia and 
Achaia; but now I go unto Jerusalem, he says, νυνὶ δὲ πορεύομαι (Rom. 
15: 25). Unquestionably, Corinth was his place of residence in Achaia ; 
the affairs of the church and his solemn promise led him to that city. 
Hence, when, after finishing his business in Achaia, he departed to re- 
turn through Macedonia to Asia, and then to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20: 
3), he set out from Corinth; and the Epistle, therefore, was written in 
that city, immediately before his departure. 

Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchrea, a suburb on the eastern harbor 
of Corinth, was going to Rome; and Paul commends her to the good 
offices of the church in that city (Rom. 16: 1). This local circum- 
stance likewise points to Corinth, and agrees with the remark we have 
just made.! It is very probable that she herself undertook, as an of- 
ficial person in the church, the delivery of the letter. 


1 Semler has given to this passage, and the whole 16th chapter, a peculiar 
interpretation, very remote from the common one. He supposes the chapter to 
have been but an accompaniment to the Epistle, not intended for the readers of 
that, but only for the special information of the bearers, to designate the persons 
whom they were to visit from station to station, and with whom they were to 
hold private conference. This catalogue of the persons who were to be visited 
was afterwards appended to the Epistle itself. 

The subject of the private conferences was the journey to Spain, which the 
apostle, in the 15th chapter, says he had resolved to undertake. This 15th 
chapter, likewise, which relates only to Paul’s affairs, without any real con- 
nexion with what precedes, was a separate appendix, viz. the first, the 16th being 
considered as the second. (Semleri Paraphr. Epistole ad Romanos, cum notis, 
translatione vetusta, et dissertat. de duplice appendice Cap. 15 et 16. Hale. 1769.) 

He interprets 16: 1 seq. as meaning that the bearers of this Epistle were to 
stop first at Pheebe’s house in Corinth, then with Aquila, and in other places with 
other persons. It is certainly incomprehensible on this supposition, that Phebe 
is not required to aid and accommodate the travellers who were to be her guests, 
but the latter to receive and assist her. He, however, refers the words, that ye 
receive her etc, iva αὐτὴν προσδέξησϑε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων, to the travellers, 

‘and explains them as meaning: ut eam recipiatis in communionem. This is ev- 
idently a mere artifice. Προσδέχεσϑαι τινὰ ἐν κυρίῳ means elsewhere (Philipp. 
2: 29), to receive one kindly and in accordance with Christian brotherhood ; just 
as τινὰ προπέμπειν ἀξίως tov ϑεοῦ (3 Ep. John 6) signifies, to forward one’s 
journey as is suitable in behalf of fellow-worshippers of God. 

They are afterwards to go to Aquila, likewise, to hold conference with him. 
That this may be conveniently done, Semler provides him with a house at Cor- 
inth. We know that Rome was Aquila’s proper place of abode, before Claudius 
expelled the Jews from the city (Acts 18: 1,2). When he was exiled, he went 
first to Corinth, and then with Paul to Ephesus; in the latter place he procured 
himself a house to live in, containing a hall in which Christians were wont to 
assemble ; there was an ἐχχλησία in his house (1 Cor. 16:19, 20). Now on what 
particular authority the third or Semlerian house at Corinth rests, 1 know not. 
The appeal in its behalf to Acts 18: 27. 19:1; “ Lucas enim scribit—cum Aquila 
interea Corinthi versatus sit’? etc., is an inadvertent one ; for the person there 
spoken of is Apollos. And now I think I may be spared further argument in ref- 
utation of this hypothesis. 

Two observations made by Bertholdt (Einl. 6th Th. § 715. p. 3303), are to the 
point. The salutation subjoined at the end by Tertius with the words, ὃ γράψας 
τὴν ἐπιστολήν (Rom. 16: 22), proves that the whole is but one composition, a 

single Epistle. As to the passage: Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ x. τ. λ.» which occurs in 
many Mss. at the end (Rom. 16; 25—27), but in most is read after 14: 28, the 
case is as follows. Since the salutations, after which this passage stood in the 
oldest Mss., were not read in the church-lessons, it was necessary either to re- 
sign the passage, beautiful as it was, or to remove it from its position and place — 


546 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


- Paul’s last visit to Corinth and his departure for Jerusalem took place 
in the middle of the 5th year of Nero. Hence the Epistle was written 


in this year. 
ᾧ 118. 


After Paul had been compelled by the uproar against him to flee 
from Ephesus, Aquila likewise departed from the city. ‘The dangers to 
which he was there exposed, on account of his connexion with the apos- 
tle (Rom. 16: 4), rendered it impossible for him to remain longer in so 
insecure a situation. He therefore returned to Rome, which was prop- 
erly his home. Here Paul supposed him to be, when he wrote his 
Epistle, and greets him accordingly (Rom. 16:3). 

For, Claudius being dead, and the commencement of Nero’s reign be- 
ing characterized by such mildness and humanity that the best of prin- 
ces could say of it: distare cunctos principes Neronis quinquennio,' 
the Jews gradually acquired sufficient confidence to return. Paul, 
when he despaired of safety in Greece and Asia, intended to reside at 
Rome till his departure for Spain. Several of Paul’s kinsmen were at 
that time in Rome (Rom. 16: 7, 11); or even supposing that the ovy- 
γενεῖς, who are mentioned, were only fellow-countrymen, the circum- 
stance proves all we desire, viz. that the Jewish Christians had returned 
to the city. 

This occurrence was so important that it could not escape the notice 
of the apostle. The Roman church, which, for a long time after the 
proscription of the Fews, consisted exclusively of converts from Pagan- 
ism, now regained its former members, and was, us it were, established and 
organized anew. It was now the right moment to induce more thorough 
concord between the two parties, to rebut the Jewish prejudices and pre-- 
tensions, which had formerly disturbed the peace and harmony of the 
- church, and to create such a mutual good understanding, as would en- 
sure to the church of Christ in the metropolis of the world a permanent 
duration for all future time. Such was the object, and such is the ten- 
dency, of the Epistle to the Romans. 

Hence the prevalent idea throughout is that, in the sight of God, Jew 
and Gentile are alike; that the prerogatives, rights, and vices of both 
are the same. And, if there ever did subsist a distinction between 
them, in the eye of Him who looks upon the whole human race with 
equal benevolence, it has been abolished by Christ, who unites all, far 
and near, under one common religion. The Epistle was addressed 
particularly tothe Jewish Christians. A concise exhibition of its con- 
tents will fully sustain this assertion. 


it further back. The latter step waschosen. But the section immediately pre- 
ceding already contained a doxology: 6 δὲ ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης etc. (15: 33) ; and hence 
it was removed still further back to 14: 23, where it is found in all the Lectio- 
naria, and almost all the Mss. written in the cursive character. 


1 Aurel. Victor. L. II. c.5. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 547 


§ 119. 


The Greeks (“ZAAnves, says Paul, out of forbearance towards the 
Romans,) might have known God from the works of nature. This 
they failed to do, and therefore fell into enormous vices (1: 18—32). 

But the Jews have not, on this account, any reason to regard them- 
selves as better than the Gentiles, inasmuch as they themselves are 
guilty of the same transgressions (—2: 9). 

Inference. Jews and Gentiles are deserving of punishment if they 
are sinful, and of reward if virtuous. In the sight of God there is no 
distinction between them (—2: 12). 

ΕΣ * * i * 


* * * * 


It is true, the heathen have no written law; but they have, instead, 
the law of nature and of the heart to guide them (—2: 16). 

The Jews had a written law, but did not follow its guidance (—2: 25). 

Do they found their prerogatives upon circumcision ? This is noth- 
ing without an observance of the law. The circumcision of the flesh 
is nothing at all in comparison with that of the heart (—3:). 

The Jews may, it is true, boast that the revelation of God was com- 
mitted to them; but this only serves to put to shame their disobedience 
to its dictates (—3: 21). 

Now, however, a new illumination has taken place of the ancient rev- 
elation; faith has taken place of the law. ‘The former has, through 
Jesus, a justifying efficacy, which the latter has not; it operates in fa- 
vor of both Jews and Gentiles, and God is the God of both (—4:). 

The Jews imagine further, that they have an exclusive title to the di- 
vine promises. ‘They were made to Abraham and his posterity, and 
therefore appropriately belong to the children of Abraham. But were 
not these promises made to Abraham on account of his faith, before the 
circumcision, when he was as yet aGentile? Is‘he not, then, the father 
of the circumcised and uncircumcised, of all who like him have faith 
(—5:). 

mt case, then, stands thus. By faith in Jesus and by his atone- 
ment alone we have obtained grace from God, and shall receive yet 
more hereafter (—5: 12). 

There is therefore, an analogy between Christ and Adam. In the 
Jaw of nature, or in heathenism, from Adam down to Moses, and in Ju- 
daism from Moses downward, all have been sinners in Adam on account 
of onesin. ‘Through Jesus, in like manner, all receive pardon, not for 
one only but for every offence (—6:). 

In baptism we were symbolically buried with Jesus, became dead to 
sin, and consequently began a new life of freedom from sin under a 
dispensation of grace (—7:). 

As being dead persons, the Jaw ceases to have any obligation upon us. 
Its binding force continues only till death, as.is shown by the regulations 
of the marriage institution (—7: 7). 

The law is indeed useful, but of very imperfect utility. It increases 
knowledge ; but, as the passions of mankind lead them astray in spite 
of their knowledge, it also increases guilt (—8:). 

Jesus delivered us from this law of sin, and promulgated the dispen- 
sation of grace. He elevated the soul to a mastery over its propensi- 


548 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


ties; he procured us the indulgence and favor of God, and pointed 
out to us a recompense for all the struggles of this earthly life, an in- 
heritance which animates our courage (—9:). 

* * * * * * * 3 * 


I indeed feel sorrow, that the Jews, my brethren, on whom their birth 
and the promises appeared to have conferred a peculiar claim to the 
Messiah, should have failed to profit by it. But it is of vastly more 
consequence to be a son of Abraham according to faith, than merely 
according to the flesh. This is shown by the example of Isaac and 
Ishmael. God is not restricted by any rights of birth, as we are taught 
by the account concerning Esau and Jacob. No requisition can be 
made of him; all is of grace, which he dispenses wisely, though the 
wisdom may not be apparent to theeye of man (—9: 29). 

God can give the Gentiles the preference, if they believe and love 
righteousness, as he can reject the Jews, if they wil} not listen to the 
ath It was proclaimed to all alike, both Jews and Gentiles 
—l]:). 

All hope is not lost, however, to the unbelieving Jews. Though for 
the present the Gentiles are preferred by God, they have no cause for 
arrogance. They are branches grafted into a foreign stock, which may 
be torn off to give place to the natural branches. Noone can penetrate 
the divine intentions (—11: 36). 

You now form together one common body. I exhort you, therefore, 
io mutual harmony, beneficence, and love (—13:). 

Obey and honor the magistrate and the Jaws; for it becomes us to 
exhibit an honest and irreproachable deportment (—14:). 

Let no one give offence to others by the heedless use of meats offered 
in sacrifice ; exercise forbearance towards one another, and edify one 
another; be ye all, Jews and Gentiles, as disciples of Jesus Christ, of 
one mind, to the glory of God (—15: 14). 

I have indeed devoted myself to the welfare of the Gentiles; but my 
office as apostle of the Gentiles requires me to do so (—15: 22). 

Purpose of visiting Rome and Spain (—16:). 

Recommendation of Phoebe to the good offices of the Roman 
church ; and salutations to individuals in it. Conclusion. 


§ 120. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Paul had determined to go to Rome as soon as he should have finish- 
ed his affairs at Jerusalem, and he did indeed go thither, not as he in- 
tended, however, but in fetters and bonds. He was seized at Jerusa- 
lei, carried to Cesarea, kept there in prison two years, and at last 
sent to Rome to appear before the emperor’s tribunal. From the capi- 
tal, where he continued in prison as many years more, he wrote several 
Epistles; those to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Philemon, as 

- is clear from their contents, and also that to the Philippians. 
It is difficult to determine the order of time in which the three first- 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 549 


named Epistles were written, as the apostle does not mention, either in 
the one to the Ephesians or the one to the Colossians, the circumstances 
in which he was placed, but in each of them refers to ‘T'ychicus, who 
was to give them verbal information in regard to his situation (Eph. 6: 
21, 22. Coloss. 4: 7, 8). 

It is an argument which goes to shew that the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians was composed first, that Paul has not prefixed the name of Timo- 
thy to it after his own, as he has in the Epistles to the Colossians and to 
Philemon, and in all the Epistles which he wrote when his faithful 
assistant was at his side. On account of this invariable custom of the 
apostle, we may infer with certainty that Timothy had not yet arrived at 
Rome, that he was not in Paul’s company, as he was when Paul wrote 
to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. He was called 
to the capital by the fate of his master, and shared that fate with him 
till his liberation (Heb. 13: 23). A second argument will be added, 
when we come to discuss the doubts which have recently been raised 
concerning the second Epistle to Timothy (ᾧ 137). 


§ 121. 


This Epistle is indeed at present directed to the Ephesians ; but it 
would seem from the account of the ancients, that in the introduction 
(Eph. 1: 1) the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, designating the city, were formerly 
wanting. 

Basil of Cappadocia maintains against Eunomius, as to the ques- 
tion, whether it can be said that the Son of God was begotten ἐξ οὐκ 
ὄντων, that he is even the ὄντως ov, and that this predicate is the rath- 
er applicable to him, as even those who know and reverence him are 
called οἱ ὄντες, while, on the contrary, the Gentiles, who know not the 
only true God and his Son, are called οὐκ ὄντα. 

For, he says, the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, calls 
believers ὄντας, addressing τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χρισ- 
τῷ ]ησοῦ (1:1). He gave them this denomination, he says, ἐδεαζόν-- 
τως, exclusively or peculiarly, as was attested by ancient fathers, and 
by Mss. in which he himself (Basil) found the passage to read thus.! 

As Basil maintains such a position from this passage, and appeals in 
confirmation of his reading to ancient fathers and ancient Mss., there 
must have been something peculiar in his reading. Now we observe 
that Basil omits in the apostle’s text the words ἐν “Agéom: τοῖς ἁγίοις 
τοῖς οὐσιν---καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ. 

Clear as this point is, it has been attempted to involve it in difficulty, 
on which account we have been compelled to devote further attention to 


1 Kai γὰρ ποῦ ἑτέρωθι 6 αὐτὸς οὗτος ἀπόστολος, ὃ ἐν πνεύματι ϑεοῦ λαλῶν, 
μὴ ὄντα ὀνομάζει τὰ ἔϑνη διὰ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστερῆσϑαι, εἰπὼν Ore τὰ 
μὴ ὄντα ἐξελέξατο ὃ Feds. ᾿Επεὶ γὰρ ὥν καὶ ἀλήϑεια καὶ ton) ὁ ϑεὸς, οἱ τῷ Tew 
τῷ ὄντε μὴ ἡνυΐμενοι κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, τῇ δὲ ἀνυπαρξίᾳ τοῦ ψευδοῦς οἰκειωϑέντες 

va τῆς περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα πλάνης, εἰκότω:, οἶμαι, διὰ τὴν στέρησιν τῆς ἀληϑείας, καὶ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἀλλοτρίωσιν μὴ ὄντες προσεγορεύϑησαν. ᾿““λλὰ καὶ τοῖς ᾿Ἐφεσίοις 
ἐπιστέλλων og γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ ὄντι δὲ ἐπιγνώσεως, ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαξόντως 
ὠνύμασεν Ρ εἰπών * τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς EV Χριστῷ ᾽᾿Ιησοῦ" οὕτω γὰρ καὶ 
οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. 


550 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


it. It has been thought preferable to suppose a different peculiarity 
from the one represented in Basil. 

A learned writer wishes to persuade us that probably the word οὖσι 
was wanting in some Mss. of Paul’s text, and because the father de- 
pended particularly on this expression as proof that the apostle had 
called Christians ὄντας, he appealed to Mss. and other authorities in 
support of it. But if this was all Basil wanted, he might have gained his 
point much more easily, by appealing to some other Epistle of Paul; e. g. 
that to the Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, or Philippians, in which 
he might have found an abundance of such expressions: τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν 
“Ῥώμῃ, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Kogivdy, τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις, 
τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Κολοσσαῖς, etc. : 

But the argument which Basil founds on Ephes. 1: 1 is of such ἃ 
nature that he cannot have read the words ἐν Agéow after τοῖς vor. 
For he is speaking of the predicate ὁ ey in its absolute signification, 
that signification in which it expresses the abstract idea of existence, 
and belongs, in its highest degree and in every conception of time, to 
God; not of é¢ud in the signification of being or dwelling in a place. 
Now, the moment the words ἐν βῳέσῳ are added, the ὄντες can no 
longer be regarded as the ascription of an attribute of God by virtue of 
which he is called ὁ ὦν, as the writer regarded it, but the ὄντες ἐν 
Lyéow are merely, persons resident in Ephesus. It is clear, then, that 
he could not possibly have read what his‘citation now wants in all Mss., 
and yet have argued as he does.” 

A similar observation, made by Jerome on Eph. 1: 1 affords further 
evidence that ἐν “Zpéow was not always found in the text of the apostle. 
He says, some interpret Paul here as intending to designate believers, 
essentie vocabulo, ut ab eo qui est qui sunt appellentur; others, how- 
ever, suppose that he wrote, not ad eos qui sunt, but ad eos qui sunt 
Ephesi. 

The question, therefore, was, whether ad cos qui sunt was to be taken 
as having no reference to place, which could never have been imagined 
by any one, if the place had been expressed in the text if the reading 


1 The question what Basil’s language really was depends onthe Mss. of his 
works. These are not at my command; but our Library, which is rich in typo- 
graphical antiquities, affords me substitutes for them, which will decide this 
question. The first Greek edition of Basil (1532 fol. apud Froben. Basilew, per 
Des. Erasm.) does not contain the books against Eunomius. The Editio prin- 
ceps, therefore, of; these books, is the Venetian one of 1535, fol. This gives the 
passage (p. 127) exactly asI have cited it. The secunda (i.e. of the work 
against Eunomius) appeared at Basle, apud Froben.” 1551, fol. and isa complete 
edition of all his works. Janus Cornarius edited the work, and did it, as he says in 
his dedication to Julius, Bishop of Naumburg, πρὸς παλαιότατα ἀρχέτυπα. In 
this, too, the passage stands as I have given it (p. 668). Fronto Duceus, in his 
edition of this father (Paris 1618), and Combefisius, in his (‘¢ Basilius Magnus ex 
integro recensitus ex fide optimor. Cod.” etc. Paris. II vols. in 8vo. 1679), dis- 
covered no variation in the Mss. ; and lastly, Garnier, likewise, who has collected 
all the information on this subject in his note L. 11. Adv. Eunom, T. I. p. 254, 
found no snch discrepancy. 


® Those who infer that Basil read the words ἐν Eqéow from the fact that he 
cites this Epistle as the Epistle to the Ephesians: τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων, 
should recollect that he was obliged to give it some name, and therefore gave it 
the usual one, as it is cited by others also in the same way, who still maintain 
that the words ἐν "Epéow were originally wanting. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 554 


were qui sunt E_phesi; or whether it was to be interpreted with a local 
reference, as to which there could have been no doubt, had not the 
place been really omitted in some copies.' 

Further, Marcion is charged by Tertullian with having altered thie 
inscription (titulum) of this Epistle, and prefixed to it the title ad La- 
odicenos, contrary to the custom of the church, according to which it 
was inscribed ad Ephesios. Hence the words ἐν Ayéow cannot have 
stood in the text of Eph. 1: 1; for, in case they had, the inscription 
would have been contradicted by the Epistle, or else he must have 
altered the words in the text itself, which Tertullian, who is not wont to 
overlook any of his misdemeanors, has not accused him of doing.* 
Moreover, they are in fact not found in the text of the celebrated Vat- 
ican Ms. ; being merely in the margin, though by the first hand.® 

The apostle, too, proceeds in this Epistle so much like a stranger, 
and treats his readers as so ignorant in regard to his office and the 
nature of his commission, that he could merely think it probable they 
might have heard that he was the apostle of the Gentiles, that a gra- 
cious dispensation towards the Gentiles was given him of God, that he 
was instructed by special revelations and endued with knowledge, in or- 
der that he might teach them (Eph. 3: 1, 2,2). The Ephesians, how- 
ever, were not thus ignorant of him and his vocation ; for he had found- 
ed their church, had resided among them more than two years anda 
half, had become acquainted with each individual, and, as he says (Acts 
20: 31), had often warned every one of them with tears. 

The author of the Synopsis which is found among the works of Atha- 
nasius, perceived plainly the distant and general character of the Epistle, 
and concluded, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary, that when 
Paul wrote it he had not yet seen the Ephesians, and had _ only receiv- 
ed oral information respecting them.* 

Now, since the Epistle did not contain the name of any place at the 
commencement, as the other Epistles of Paul which were directed to 
whole churches did ; since its style is so distant and its whole purport so 
general ; it islesslikely to have been written for the Ephesians in partic- 
ular, than for several churches at once. Archbishop Usher’s sup- 
position is the best explanation which we have of its destination and 
object. He thinks it was an encyclical letter, which was directed to sev- 
eral churches of Asia Minor at the same time. Hence a vacant space 


1 Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. ‘ Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant 
ex eo, quod Mosi dictum sit : Hee dices filiis Israel, gue est misit me, etiam eos, 
qui Ephesi sunt, sancti et fideles essentie vocabulo nuncupatos, ut ab eo quz 
est, hi qui sunt appellentur. Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos qui sunt, sed qui 
Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, scriptum arbitrantur.’’ Comp. Not. Vallarsii ad ἢ. |. 


Tertull. L. V. Adv. Marcion.c. 17. ““ Ecclesia quidem veritate epistolam 


istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei titulum 
aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil 
autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.” 
And, L. V.c. 11. “ Pretereo hie et de alid epistolA quam nos ad Ephesios per- 
scriptam habemus, hwretici vero ad Lavdicenos.” Comp. Koppe, Nov. Test. Per- 
pet. Annot. Illustr. Vol. VI. Prol. ad Eph. p.5—7, Ed. Tychsen. 


3 Hug, De antiquitate Codicis Vaticani, p. 26. 
4 Ταύτην, πρὸς Εφεοίους, ἐπιοτέλλει ἀπὸ Ῥώμης, οὔπω μὲν αὐτοὺς ἑωρακὼς, 
ἊΝ ‘ > - 
ἀκούσας δὲ μόνον περὶ αὐτῶν. 


. 


© bez —— . -£ φῦ 
*g δ) ὦ) i ν᾽ ὰ -- ¢ 
‘ eg ἂς ζ 
Σ a; a ae > Ὁ 
a: μὲ : = δὲν 
552 Bs PAUL® EPISTLES. thd oi 
ἵ. Cy PB ies, 


THY Ἂν. “ἢ ἔκ 
was left for (ἢ ame of the place, that it might be filled up by thereader, = 
according to the church in which it was read: Iavios, 'ἄποστολος 
᾿μησοῦ Χριστοῦ die. ϑελήματος ϑεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν .... καὶ 
πιστοῖς κ΄ τ... ‘ | 

Yet it was necessary that it should appear among Paul’s Epistles un- 
der some definite name which should be agreed upon, in order that no 
uncertainty respecting it, or pretence on the part of such as might 
claim the honor of having received it, might occasion difficulty in form- 
ing a collection or in regard tothe canon. It was therefore inscribed, 
Ποὺς ᾿βᾳεσίους, because Ephesus was the chief, or the first, Asiatic 
city which received it (Ephes. 5: 19. 2 Tim. 4:12). After a time, 
moreover, the words ἐν ‘igeow came to be inserted in the text itself, 
and, on the authority of the inscription, were admitted into many Mss. 


§ 122. 


The contents are as follows: Paul at the commencement extols the 
value and advantages of Christianity, the dignity of its founder, and 
the benefits which those to whom the Epistle was directed had received 
from it (—2:). He then refers to himself as the minister of this uni- 
versal blessing, mentions his bonds, which he endured particularly for 
the Gentiles, and exhorts them to become more and more rooted and 
grounded in the sublime doctrines of the Gospel (—4:). After these 
preparatory remarks, he enjoins upon them union in doctrine and ex- 
ternal worship, and tells them that, however different may be the sta- 
tion of individual members in the church, this very difference is intend- 
ed only to promote their unity as a body (—4: 17). He now passes to 
their deportment, and requires that it be worthy of their high calling; 
speaks of amendment, of meekness, concord, and beneficence (—5:). 
He then enlarges particularly upon fornication, and other vices of the 
Gentiles. | 

* From 5: 21—6: 10 he treats of the duties of married and domestic 
life, of the husband, the wife, children, and servants. In conclusion, 
he exhorts them again to constancy under a state of things peculiarly 
perilous to Christianity, and adds a salutation. 


§ 123. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Colosse was one of the principal cities of Phrygia, concerning which, 
however, the ancients have given us but little information. Not long 
after Paul wrote thither, in the latter part of Nero’s reign, it was over- 
whelmed by an earthquake.! In some Mss. it is called Colasse, and 
this reading has been so much liked, that many have alway cited the 


1 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. V. c. 41. Oros. Hist. L. VIII. c. 7. Kenophon (De Ex- 


ped. Cyri, L. I. c,2.n.6) speaks of Kolooods, πόλιν οἰκουμένην, εὐδαίμονα, καὶ 
μεγάλην. . 


we 


ΡΝ 
- ΕΙΣ " 


a. ἀξ 
> 22 
τ 


2 a< 

wy: Ὁ» : é 5 ᾿ς 

ἐς" Ἄ ; >< 
ai he PAUL'S EPISTLES. : ἢ §53 


) ¥ 2 
δον 3 
ae ? 


% 2 


“Epistle accordingly. “We, however, invariably id on the coins of this 


city KOAOSSHNO/, and AHMOX KOAOZLZHANQN. 

Paul had not taught here himself; they were acquainted with Chris- 
tianity probably only through his disciples, and with Paul himself only 
from oral information. One of their principal teachers was Epaphras, 
upon Whom certain preachers of false doctrines were desirous of casting 
odium. Paul protected him, however, with his authority, and express- 
ed his approval of him and his doctrines (Col. 1: 7. 4: 12, 13). 


§ 124. 


Paul did not write this Epistle until after that to the Ephesians; for 
Timothy had arrived at Rome (Col. 1: 1), a consolation which he did 
not enjoy when he wrote the latter Epistle, as we have remarked in the 
proper place. Tychicus carrted both of these Epistles to Asia, but at 
different times ; first, as I imagine, that tothe Ephesians and the second 
to Timothy (2 Tim. 4: 12), and then those to the Colossians and Phile- 
mon. The first two were written at the commencement ef his impris- 
onment; one before his trial, and the other shortly after it, at which lat- 
ter period his prospects were sad and gloemy, as described in the Epis- 
tle to Timothy. The last two were written sometime in the following 
year, when his prospects began to brighten; for, in the Epistle to Phile- 
mon, which was despatched with that to the Colossians, the apostle an- 
ticipates his speedy liberation, and holds out to his friend the hope that 
he will soon visit him (Philemon, v. 22). Such are the conclusions to 
which I have arrived in regard to the time when these Epistles were 
sent ; and I shall establish them more fully when I come to discuss the 
second Epistle to Timothy. 


§ 125. 


Atthe beginning of the Epistle he commends their faith and love, 
and the instructions of Epaphras, and assures them of his prayers on 
their behalf. He then extols the benefits bestowed by Jesus Christ, de- 
clares him to be the Creator, Lord of the spiritual world and of all 
existences, and the enlightener of the Gentiles (—1: 24). He then 
speaks of himself as an ambassador of Jesus, and of his bonds, which 
he bore for the Gospel and its followers, even for those whom he had 
never seen, and, taking occasion from his own sufferings, exhorts them 
to adhere with unwavering confidence to their first instruction, and to 
beware of heresies (—2: 12). He represents:to them that, having been 
symbolically buried with Christ in baptism, having become dead to the 
follies of human opinions, they should now labor to elevate their minds 
to a new and loftier sphere, should aspire after a celestial mode of life, 
and constantly aim _to exhibit innocence, uprightness, forbearance and 
meekness (—3: 18). 

He then treats of the duties of the wife, the husband, children and 
servants, and exhorts them to prayer. He closes with salutations, and 
an injunction to communicate this Epistle to the Laodiceans, and to 
read that from Laodicea at Colosse. 

70 


554 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


OF THE EPISTLE TO FHE LAODICEANS. 


We are in possession of an Epistle directed to the Laodiceans, and 
claiming to have been written by Paul.! No great philological know- 
ledge or acquaintance with higher criticism is needed, to enable one to 
pass sentence against this miserable composition. We cannot discover, 
in all the remains which we have of the early times of Christianity, the 
slightest evidence that the ancients were ever acquainted with any more 
valuable writing under this name, any writing worthy of regard or re- 
specting which they thought it worth while to express so much as a leni- 
ent doubt.” 

It has even been denied that the Epistle to the Laodiceans ever exist- 
ed; though, it would seem, in contradiction to the testimony of Paul 
(Col. 4:16). He says: When this Epistle is read among you, cause 
that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye like- 
wise read the one from Laodicea: καὶ τὴν ἐκ Aaodexeiag ἵνα καὶ 
ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε. 

Qn this Chrysostom and Theodoret remark, in. their Commentaries, 
that some think the words refer to an Epistle which the church at La- 
odicea had written to the apostle. -For the expression is, τὴν ἐκ do- 
οδικείας, that from Laodicea, not τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Aaodcxeis, that to the 
Laodiceans. Many others have been of the same opinion. 

The words may, however, have either signification, and they present an 
equally harsh ellipsis in either case ; whether we swppose them to mean, 
Cause the Epistle to be brought from Laodicea, which the church has 
received from me,or, Cause the Epistle from Laodicea to be brought to 
you, which the church wrote to me. 

But, if there was not an equal exchange of two apostolic Epistles, 
and ἡ ἔχ Aaodexeiag denotes an Epistle which the Laodiceans had 
sent to the apostle, why does Paul enjoin that this letter to him should 
also be communicated to the Colossians? Did he wish to make the 
Laodiceans teachers of the Colossians, and to present their sentiments as 
an example and standard for the Iatter? As we cannot believe that this 
was the case, the injunction can have been given only because one Epis- 
tle had reference to the contents of the other, and was requisite to a 
thorough understanding of it. : 

The contents of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, then, must have 
been of such a nature, that it could not be understood without that 
which the Laodiceans had previously sent to the apostle, and it was 
therefore necessary that the latter should be read with it. But then it 
is strange that Paul should write to the Colossians what particularly 
concerned the Laodiceans; that he made no reply to the Laodiceans, 


1 Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T. P..II, p. 853. P. ΤΠ. p. 710. 


2 Anonym. apud Murator. Antiqq. αἴ. Med. Aevi, T. III. p.853. Hieronym. 
Script. Eecles. v. Paulus. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 555 


who, however, would not have written to him without cause ; that he 
wrote to the former what they could not understand, and did not write 
at all to the latter, who might have understood him. 

Besides, the Epistle to the Colossians has no apparent reference to a 
prior Epistle from any quarter ; it refers only to oral accounts. It re- 
fers to what the apostle had heard respecting the condition and affairs 
of the Colossian church (Col. 1: 3), ἀκούσαντες, and expressly men- 
tions Epaphras, δηλώσας x. τ. 4. (Col. 1: 8, 9), as having been the au- 
thor of the information. 

It is, therefore, impossible in every point of view, to suppose that the 
apostle had an Epistle from the Laodiceans before him when he wrote 
his Epistle to the Colossians, and composed the latter with special ref- 
erence to it; and we must explain rv ἐκ Aaodexeias, as denoting an 
Epistle of Paul which he had written to that city, and which was to 
be communicated by the Laodiceans to the Colossians, as the latter 
were required to do the like in return. 

But where then is this Epistle? What became of it at so early a pe- 
riod that nothing was known of it by any of the ancient writers?) How 
could the Epistle to the Laodiceans perish, while that to the Colossians 
is preserved? If the Laodiceans did resign it to oblivion, we see 
that the Colossians have handed theirs down to posterity, and when that 
to the Laodiceans came into such careful hands, how happened it that 
it was not preserved with the other ? 

Of these difficulties, which are as urgent as they are well-founded, 
there is no better solution than the ingenious hypothesis which was first 
propounded, I believe, by Hugo Grotius. He considers the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans to have been the same as that which is now termed the Epis- 
tle to the Ephesians. This was directed to several churches in Asia Mi- 
nor, and particularly to such as had not seen the apostle, among which 
he himself reckons the Laodiceans (Col. 2:1). Marcion gave it the 
title, Πρὸς τοὺς “αοδικεῖς, whence it appears that it was supposed by 
some in ancient times to have been specially intended for the Laodiceans ; 
for we shall readily be convinced that Marcion intended a correction rath- 
er than a falsification, if we only reflect that he could have had no motive 
for the latter in this case. ‘The relative situation of the places, too, was 
such as to make it most natural that the Colossians should be directed 
to Laodicea to procure the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians. The 
hypothesis, therefore, not only has the recommendation of solving the 
above difficulties, but has, likewise, peculiar internal probability. 


§ 127. 
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


The apostle was visited at Rome by Onesimus, a fugitive slave of 
Philemon ; he effected his conversion, and sent him back, with a re- 
commendation, to his master. A!though Paul was restoring property 
which was then of considerable value, and was, moreover, returning it 


556 ΟΠ PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


to its owner in an improved condition, and although the services of such 
a man must then have been extremely acceptable, and the friendly re- 
Jation between him and the master of the slave would seem to have jus- 
tified his retention, he sent him back with all the delicacy of refined 
society, and gave him a recommendation to his master. 

Thy faith and love, Philemon, he writes, are a very great consolation 
to me. I send thee thy fugitive slave, whom I converted in prisom 
Gladly as 1 should have retained him to minister unto me, I would not 
do so without leave from thee. Receive him, forgive him, treat him 
as a brother; for such he has become by becoming aChristian. I hope 
soon to see thee. I salute thee, as do all who are with me. 

This Epistle and that to the Colossians were sent at the same time, viz- 
when Onesimus returned to his master (Philem. 10: 11, 12. Coloss. 4: 
7, 8,9). In both Epistles we find the same persons with Paul, viz. 
᾿ Timothy, Aristarchus, who was Paul’s fellow-prisoner, Marcus, Lucas, 
Demas, and Epaphras (Philem. 23. Coloss. 4: 10, 12, 14). 


§ £28. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


This, in my opinion, was written during Paul’s first imprisonment at 
Rome, after that to the Ephesians, and between those to the Colossians 
and Philemon. Learned men, however, have referred its composition 
to his second Roman imprisonment, the circumstances of which are 
wholly unknown to us. As might be expected from their knowledge 
and erudition, they do not want arguments in support of their position. 

It is certain that the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and Phile- 
mon were composed during the first imprisonment at Rome, and, 
moreover, in the order in which we have named them. Now there are 
some circumstances brougtst to view in these Epistles, which individual 
ize the first.imprisonment, and which we must notice, for the purpose of 
comparing them with those which may be gathered from the second 
Epistle to Timothy. . 

At the beginning of the imprisonment, when the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians was written, Timothy, who was not one of Paul’s companions on 
the voyage to Italy (Acts 27: 2), was not with him at Rome; for Paul 
does not add his name in the address with which the Epistle commences, 
as he always did when Timothy was at his side. ‘Timothy afterwards 
arrived ; and, accordingly, at the outset of the Epistles to the Colossians 
and Philemon, his name appears with the apostle’s (Col. 1: 1. Philem. 
1). 2dly. Luke was in Paul’s company (Col. 4:14. Philem. 24). 3dly- 
Mark was likewise with him (Col. 4: 10. Philem. 24). 4thly. Tych- 
icus was then Paul’s dvaxovog and letter-bearer, and, in particular, was 
sent to Asia (Eph. 4: 21. Col. 4: 7, 8). 

All these circumstances are presented to view in the 2d Epistle to 
Timothy. Timothy was not with Paul at first; but was summoned to 
his side (2 Tim. 4:9, 21). Qdly, Luke was with him (2 Tim. 4: 11). 
3dly, He wishes Mark to come with Timothy; so that he must have 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 557 


been with him in the course of his imprisonment (2 Tim. 4: 11). 4thly, 
Tychicus was with him, in the capacity of letter-bearer, and, in particu- 
lar, was sent to Asia (2 Tim. 4: 12). 

Now, in order to suppose that Paul wrote this Epistle to Timothy dur- 
ing a second imprisonment at Rome, we must assume that the circum- 
stances of both were precisely the same; we must suppose that at each 
time Timothy was not at first with the apostle, but joined him after- 
wards ; that Mark was with him each time, and likewise Luke; and 
that each time Tychicus was Paul’s dzaxovog and letter-bearer, and was 
sent to Asia. 

We must, moreover, assume that Paul, at both times, even in the lat- 
ter part of Nero’s reign, was permitted to receive friends during his 
confinement, to write letters, despatch messengers, and, in general, to 
have free intercourse with every body. And yet, even in his first im- 
prisonment, this permission was only a happy accident, and would never 
have been granted, had it not been for the specially courteous and 
friendly disposition of the centurion, Julius (Acts 38: 16. Comp. 27: 3). 
The custodia libera, or ἄδεσμος, in the houses of magistrates, was 
allowed only to Romans of distinguished rank. The custodia apud 
vades could be permitted only for special reasons, respecting which the 
magistrate was to judge. In the custodia militaris, the prisoner was 
given in charge to a centurion, and chained to a soldier. We may 
readily conceive how much one could write in such a situation, how 
easily he could receive and send away letters and messengers, if the 
centurion did not treat him with special favor. And yet in the milder 
days of Nero’s reign this was the confinement which fell to the apos- 
tle’s lot. If a worse fate, the Carcer, was allotted him in his second im- 
prisonment, as it is to be feared it was, at a time when no ill-treatment 
was sufficiently severe for the Christians, he must have been fortunate 
if he was not compelled to surrender the light of day.' 

As we have said, the custodia militaris was the apostle’s lot. On ar- 
riving at Rome, Julius delivered up his prisoners to the Prafectus pre- 
toriv, Stoaronsdagyns. At the beginning of the Sth’year of Nero, 
Burrhus held this office; at his death two persons were appointed to 
succeed him, Fenius Rufus and Sofonius Tigellinus. Tacitus relates 
that the death of Burrhus occurred in the 8th year of Nero. The de- 
cease of this confessedly upright man created the more consternation, 
as little good could be anticipated from the listless harmlessness of one 
of his successors, or the insatiable depravity of the other, the latter of 
whom in the sequel gained Nero’s entire confidence and an exorbitant 
degree of power. Seneca soon felt the change in the atmosphere of 
the court, and retired from it, in the same year that his friend died, 
which he calls, in his address to the Emperor, the 8th of his reign.” 

The apostle was permitted to dwell by himself, with a soldier who 
guarded him (Acts 28: 16). This distinction was an extraordinary fa- 
vor. Much, however, depended still on the good-humor of the centu- 
rion who had charge of him, and of the guard to whom, for the time be- 


L. II. 
2 Tacit. Annal. L. XIV. ὁ. 53. 


558 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


ing, he was chained. Lastly, the free communication with others, which 
Paul enjoyed, was a privilege possessed by few prisoners. 

How difficult it was to obtain such privileges in altered circumstances, 
we see from the case of Herod Agrippa, who owed it to interference 
from the highest quarter, that the Pref. pretorio assigned the charge 
of him to a more courteous centurion, chained him to less brutal guards, 
and connived at the visit of a few friends, and the procuring of a few 
conveniences under cover of the darkness of night.! 


§ 129. 


Though the identity of the situation and chain of circumstances 
points so clearly to one and the same imprisonment, it is still said by 
those who transfer the composition of this Epistle to the second impris- 
onment, that there are some indications in it which do not at all accord 
with the first. | 

Paul says: Erastus abode at Corinth; but Trophimus have I left at 
Miletus sick (2 Tim. 4:20). Now this is a wholly different route from 
the one which Luke states to have been taken on the first voyage to Ita- 
ly. On that occasion Paul sailed to Sidon, thence to Cyprus, then 
along the coast of Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia, was driven to Crete, 
and did not come within ten German miles of Miletus ; and, so far from 
going to Corinth, was driven by the storm towards Africa, and carried 
to Malta (Acts 27: 3—44). 

But Paul does not here say that he went to Corinth, but only that 
Erastus remained there, where he was an officer of the church: ἔμεε-- 
ve ἐν Kogivdw. Thishe might say, if Erastus was expected at Rome, 
on account of a promise or out of friendship, and had not come accord- 
ing to anticipation. 

As to Trophimus, the passage would be of more weight if it necessa- 
rily meant: I left him sick at Miletus. It runs,thus: 7Ζρόφιμον δὲ 
ἀπέλιπον ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἀσϑενοῦντα. These words may mean: they left 
Trophimus at Miletus sick. 

Many churches had sent delegates to the apostle with supplies, and 
likewise as amici and deprecatores, who, according to Greek and Ro- 
man usage, were to accompany the accused in causd capitali to his 
trial (2 Tim. 4:16). The duty of affection to support a friend ata 
trial was sacred among the Romans, and still more so among Christians. 
Observe how Lucian ridicules the zeal of the Christians when one of 
their teachers was in prison; describing them as sending deputies to 
him from the cities of Asia at the common cost, to console and assist 
him on his trial.2, In this way came Epaphroditus (Philipp. 4: 18), 
Epaphras (Col. 4: 12, 13), and Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1: 16, 17). Many 
came from Asia, who, notwithstanding, pusillanimously left the apostle 
to his fate (ὦ Tim. 1: 15). Thus, too, Erastus ought to have come from 
Corinth, either as a friend, on his own account, or commissioned by the 
church, in behalf of which Paul had done so much. 


1 Joseph. Antiqq. L. XVIII. c. 6. § 7. 


5. Kad μὴν καὶ τῶν ev” Aoig πόλεών ἐστιν, ὧν ἧκόν τινες τῶν Χριστιανῶν. στελ-- ἡ 


λόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ, βοηϑήσοντες, καὶ ξυναγορευσοντες, καὶ παραμυϑησόμενον 
τὸν ἄνδρα (De morte peregrin. ὃ 18. T. VIII. p. 280. Bipont.). 


ὃ 
7 
4 
; 


ee =P τ ὐὐϑλλ χουν ΨΡο 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 559 


There was special reason, however, for the appearance af Trophi- 
mus. On occasion of Paul’s first imprisonment, his presence was in- 
dispensable, as he had been the cause of Paul’s apprehension (Acts 
21: 29). According to the Roman laws, witnesses on both sides were 
examined personally to decide the cause, and in this case the main ac- 
cusation depended on the question, whether T'rophimus was a heathen, 
so that Paul was chargeable with having introduced heathen into the tem- 
ple?) Now, if he travelled in company with his countrymen, the dele- 
gates from Asia to the apostle, and fell sick on his journey, the passage 
signifies, very naturally: ZTrophimus they left sick at Miletus. Such 
an accident must have occasioned no little hindrance to Paul’s trial and 
the decision of his cause. 

We do not know that Trophimus had any thing to do with the 
second imprisonment ; but it is certain that he was bound to appear at 
the first trial. The supposed objection, therefore, in regard to him, 
in fact confirms what it was intended to disprove. 

We are directed to the first imprisonment, likewise, by the agency 
in Paul’s fortunes which is attributed to Alexander, who in the uproar 
at Ephesus was put forward by the Jews as speaker (Acts 19: 33), 
and who now persecuted the apostle with animosity before the Roman 
tribunal (2 Tim. 4: 14, 15). Those who were desirous of bringing 
Paul to trial would not base an accusation on any old, half-forgotten 
story ; they must have made use of the first occurrence which could 
serve their purpose, and have appeared when process was commen- 
ced against him. Besides, it was uncertain whether a second oppro- 
tunity would ever occur. In the tumultuous times in which Paul’s 
second imprisonment took place, witnesses and accusers would hardly 
have been summoned from remote provinces, or the trial prolonged for 
one or two years, so that all who wished to bring accusations could 
have had time to appear in Rome. 

The second Epistle to Timothy, therefore, was composed during Paul’s 
first imprisonment at Rome. It was written after the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, and before that to the Colossians. The apostle in this 
Epistle earnestly summons Timothy to his side. Now, when the Epis- 
tle to the Ephesians was sent, Timothy was not with him; when those 
to the Colossians and Philemon were sent, he was. The Epistle to the 
Ephesians and the one to Timothy both went to Asia, and therefore 
may both have been sent at the same time. 

In the Epistle to Timothy his situation is still gloomy and doubt- 
ful ; he has still the prospect of a tragical fate before him, and sees lit- 
tle probability of deliverance. In the Epistle to Philemon, however, 
which was sent at the same time with that to the Colossians, he express- 
es hopes of his liberation, and promises Philemon a visit. 


§ 130. 


The contents of the Epistle to Timothy are as follows: I often think 
of thee, and desire ardently to see thee; be not ashamed of me, or of 
the Gospel, for which Iam in bonds. Many have fallen away from me; 
thou wilt not doso. ‘Take courage ; teach with perseverance, as I have 
done ; I Jive and die for the sake of Christ, that Γ may reign with him 


560 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


(—2: 14). Meddle not with disputes, or over-learned topics; be every 
where a worthy, meek, and patient teacher (—3: 1). But be on your 
guard; know that a pernicious class of false teachers will arise; do 
thou, on this account, only cleave the closer to pure doctrine ; continue 
faithful to your early instruction ; watch, be careful, be unremittingly at- 
tentive, for Jesus’ sake (—4:6.) 1 am now ready to be offered; hasten 
tome. All have left me, and cruel accusers have risen up against me ; 
but the Lord knows how to work out deliverance still. 


§ 181. 


OF THE HERETICS AGAINST WHOM THE EPISTLES TO THE 
EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS AND TIMOTHY ARE AIMED. 


Without an acquaintance with the opinions of those teachers who 
caused the apostle so much apprehension and sorrow, many parts of 
these writings must necessarily be obscure and unintelligible. An in- 
vestigation of them is necessarily comprehended in an Introduction, the 
object of which is to furnish such historical and critical knowledge as 
is prerequisite to the business of interpretation. 

From the traits by which the apostle characterizes them, some have 
thought that they were Gnostics, others that they were Essenes ; and 
each party derives arguments in behalf of its position, from accordance 
in tenets, opinions, and customs. But perhaps it would be as difficult 
to prove that the Gnostic system was completely developed at so early a 
period, as it is unjust to impute to the Essenes that extreme immorality, 
with which Paul charges these deceivers, inasmuch as the contempora- 
ries of this Jewish sect, and all those acquainted with it, speak of it with 
respect, and extol its adherents as the most virtuous men of their time. 

The resemblance which has been perceived in the tenets and senti- 
ments of the two sects, compared with Paul’s expressions, arises from a 
common source, the philosophy of the age, of which both partook. It will, 
therefore, be more accurate to go back one step, and consider the phi- 
losophy itself, as the common original of these systems. It found adhe- 
rents among the Jews as well as Gentiles. Both retained their pre- 
vious speculative opinions when they adopted Christianity, and endeav- 
ored to combine or reconcile them with it, as well as they were able. 
By this means Christianity became disfigured, and unlike itself, and 
would have been swallowed up in an ocean of philosophical vagaries, if 
the apostles had not also protected against human folly that which they 
defended with their blood and their lives against violence. 

The Greeks were very early acquainted with the oriental, or, as it 
was called, Babylonish or Chaldee philosophy, as were the Romans, 
long before the time of Augustus, and still more familiarly during his 
reign ; and the system bid fair to spread over all Asia and Europe. It 
employed various divinities and subordinate spirits for the explanation 
of certain natural occurrences and for the regulation of earthly affairs 
in general, as well as-for the solution of certain metaphysical questions, 
which have always been classed among the difficult problems of philos- 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 561 


ophy. The practical part of this system consisted of precepts by the 
observance of which men might procure intercourse with these spirits or 
demons. The advantage promised from this intercourse with spiritual 
beings was, that by their aidsuperhuman knowledge could be acquired, 
future events foretold, and supernatural deeds performed.! These phi- 
losophers were well known under the name of Magi and Chaldeans, 
who, in order to adapt their system raore perfectly to the western na- 
tions, altered it according to the Grecian philosophy, and finally suc- 
ceeded, it seems, in combining it with that of Plato. Hence arose in 
later times the sect of the New Platonists, and the Gnostic sect among 
the Christians. 

These men even made their way to the throne. Tiberius received 
instruction in their philosophy, and was fully convinced, that by com- 
munication with demons extraordinary things might be learned and 
effected.2 Nero caused a great many of them to be brought from Asia, 
not unfrequently at the expense of the provinces. ‘The supernatural 
spirits would never appear, but still he did not abandon his belief in 
them. ; 

The Magi and Chaldeans were consulted on occasion of great under- 
takings,’ foretold the result of conspiracies, called up spirits, prepared 
sacrifices, and afforded the aid of their arts in love-affairs.° Even the 
severity of the laws, which were often directed against them in Rome, 
had no other effect than to increase their reputation.® 

As they found access and favor with all classes in the capital, so did 
they likewise in the provinces. Paul found a Magian in the court of 
the Pro-consul at Paphos (Acts 13:6). There was one at Samaria, nam- 
ed Simon, who was there regarded as a being of a higher and spiritual 
order (Acts 8: 9). The expression employed is remarkable, as being a 
scrap of the technical language of the Theurgists: the people called him a 
AYNAMIE τοῦ ϑεοῦ μεγάλη. Pliny gives the same denomination 
tosome of the demons and subordinate spirits by whose co-operation 
extraordinary results were effected. He calls them POTESTATES.” 

Justin Martyr, the countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some 
of the technical expressions of his adherents. He says they gave him 
the exalted title: ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ δυναμ- 
εως 8 

Of these classes of spirits, which appear under such different names, 
there were the superior, which ruled the others, and the inferior, which 


1 Diod. Sic. L. II. ο. 29, 30, 31. p. 142—144. Wessel. 


2 Dio Cass. L. LVII. p. 419. Rob. Steph. Respecting his teacher Thrasyllus, 
see Juven. Sat. VI. 575. Tacit. Annal. L. VI. c. 20, 21. Gronov. Juv. Sat. X. 
93. ‘ Principis augusta Caprearum in rupe sedentis cum grege Chaldwo.”’ 


3 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXX.c.5. 

4 Tacit. Annal. L. II. ο. 27 seq. 

5 Philo, De legg. special. p. 542. Ed. Turneb. 

6 Tacit. Ann. L. 11. ο. 32. Sueton. in Vitell. 14. Juvenal, Sat. VI. 556—560. 

7 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXIX.c.19. “ Sanguinem (basilisci) Magi miris laudi- 
bus celebrant .. . . Tribuunt ei successus petitionum a potestatibus et a diis.”’ 

8 Dial. cum Tryph. Ed. Rob. Steph. p. 115. : 

᾽ 71 


562 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


were of a more material substance, and might therefore come into im- 
mediate contact with matter, and which executed the commands of 
their superiors.! 

By communication with the superior spirits, a person might command 
the service and aid of the inferior ; for the more powerful demons then 
ordered the lesser ones (ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων, Matth. 12: 24) 
to perform particular commissions in the material world.” 

A complete exhibition of this system and its various forms has been 
furnished us by the Syrian philosopher, Jamblicus of Chalcis, in his 
work, On the Mysteries of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. I know, in- 
deed, that the work has been by some regarded as not his;° but sup- 
posing it to be the production of any New Platonist, we have at all 
events this advantage from it, that in it are collected together, in a 
comparatively short compass, all those absurdities which we should oth- 
erwise be compelled to glean from many other writings. We will, 
therefore, deduce from it and present here a short sketch of this re- 
markable system, as it existed after it became current among the 
Greeks. 

The following are its principal points. The nature of the gods isa 
pure, spiritual, and perfect unity. Considering this high and entire 
immateriality, no operation upon matter on their part is conceivable ; and 
hence they could not create and cannot govern the world.* 

It is therefore necessary to suppose certain subordinate deities, who 
are compound in their nature and can operate on gross matter. These 
are the creators and governors of the world, δημιουργοί and κοσμοκρα- 
τορὲς.5 

The superior deities are, notwithstanding, the real cause of all that 
exists, and everything derives its being from their fulness, πλήρωμα. δ 

There is no abrupt descent from the highest to the lowest deities, but a 
continuous, gradual declination from the supreme pure spirit to those 
gross natures which are nearly allied to matter, and thus are qualified to 
operate upon it.’ These spirits occupy various places of abode in the 
gross atmosphere or in more elevated regions, according to their grosser 
or purer nature.® 

1 « Neque enim ipsos (deos) a cura rerum humanarum, sed a contrectatione 
sola removi ... . Ceterum sunt quedam divine medie potestates (δυνάμεες) 
etc.” (Apul. De Gen. Socrat. p. 229, Bipont.). 

2 “ Que cuncta celestium voluntate et numine et auctoritate, sed demonum 
obsequio et ministerio fieri arbitrandum est’’ (Apul. 1. c. p. 230). 

3 Chr. Meiners, ‘‘ Judicium de libro, qui de mysteriis . . . . Jamblicho vindi- 
cari solet,”’ in Comment. Soc. Reg. Goetting. 1781. Cl. Philol. p. 50. The pas- 
sage, Schol. in Plat. in Anecdot. το. Siebenkees, p. 21. Norimb. 1798, may be 
regarded as an additional evidence since discovered in favor of Jamblichus. 

4 Jamblichi Chalgidensis ex Celesyria de mysteriis liber. Ed.“‘Thom. Gale 
Oxon. e theat. Sheld. 1673. Sect. I. c. 7. p. 9. VIII. c. 2. 158. 

5 Sect. If. ¢.3.p. 41. Oc μὲν δοκοῦσιν οὗτοι εἶναι ov κοσμοκράτορες, οὗ τὰ 
υἱπὸ σελήνην στοιχεῖα διοικοῦντες... .. 

6 Sect. 1. 6. 8. p.15. "AAR οὗ μὲν πρείττονες ἐν αὐτῷ vig ὑπὸ μηδενὸς περεέχ-- 
ονται, καὶ περιέχουσι πάντα ἐν αὐτοῖς. Td δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Ev τοῖς πληρώρασε τῶν 
ϑεὼν ἔχοντα τὸ εἶναι x. τ. A. 

7 Sect. If. c. 3. p. 41. Sect. V. c. 19. p. 134—135. 

8 Diog. Laert. in Proem. p. 5. Henr. Steph. *Aoxstv (Χαλδαίους) τε καὶ wav -- 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 563. 


The highest of these classes of spirits are called ἀρχαὶ or ἀρχικὰ 
αἴτια. Other divine natures, ϑείαν οὐσίαι, are intermediate beings, 
μέσαι.39 Those which direct the affairs of the world are called ἄρχον-- 
τὲς,3 and the spirits which obey their orders δυνάμεις and ἄγγελοι." 
The ἀρχάγγελο! are not generally recognized in this system; the 
class is said to have been of later origin, and to have been first introduced 
into the spiritual world by Porphyry. If we add further the ἐξουσίαν of 
which, as we have seen, Justin speaks, we shall have enumerated most 
of the technical names employed in this demonology.® 

Now, to attain a union with the superior orders of spirits, in which 
alone man’s perfect felicity consists, it is first necessary that one should 
be freed from servitude to the body, which detains the soul from soar- 
ing upward to the purely spiritual.® 

Matrimony, therefore, and every indulgence of the sexual passion, 
must be renounced, before this perfection of felicity can be attained. 
Indeed, the magian offerings and ceremonies cannot, without great inju- 
ry, even be imparted to those who have not emancipated themselves from 
corporeal lusts and attachments.” 

To eat meat, or to eat of any slain animal at all, nay, even to touch 
it, is contamination 

Bodily exercise and purifications, although the gift of prophecy is not 
communicated by them, do yet assist it.° 

Notwithstanding the gods listen only to the holy, they still mislead 
men to the commission of unholy actions.!” This is probably because 


τικὴν, καὶ πρόῤῥησιν καὶ αὐτοῖς ϑεοὺς ἐμφανέζεσϑωι λέγονται. °AAAd καὶ εἰδώλων 
πλήρη εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα nar ἀπόῤδῥοιαν ὑπὸ ἀναϑυμιάσεως εἰσκρινομένων ταῖς ὄψεσι 
τῶν ὀξυδερκῶν (Apul. De Gen. Socrat. p. 229—232). ‘*Ceterum sunt quedam 
divine mediz potestates intersummum ethera et infimas terras, in isto intersite 
aeris spatio, per quas et desideria et merita nostra ad deos commeant .. . Habe- 
ant igitur hec demonum corpora modicum levitatis, ne ad inferna precipiten- 
tur.’ Although Jamblichus differs from the opinion of those who assign the 
abodes of the various orders of spirits according to the degree of their material- 
ity: Τὴν πρὸς τὰ διαφέροντα σώματα κατὰ τάξιν, οἷον ϑεῶν μέν πρὸς τὰ αἰϑέρια, 
δαιμόνων δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀέρια, ψυχῶν δὲ τῶν πρὸς τὴν γῆν αἰτίαν εἶναι (Sect. I. ο. 8), 
he still mentions of re ἀέριοι καὶ οὗ περὶ γῆν δαίμονες (Sect. VI. ς, 6). 

1 Jambl. Sect. I. c. 7. p. 11. 

2 Sect. I. c. 6. 

3 Sect. Il. c. 7. p. 49. 

4 Sect. V.c. 21. p. 136. 


5 The doctrine of the Logos in this system was drawn from the Hgyptian phi- 
losophy. Tore τῷ ολῳ δημιουργῷ τὴν ψυχὴν προσάγει καὶ παρακατατίϑεται. Καὶ 
ἐχτὸς πάσης ὕλης αὐτὴν ποιεῖ μόνῳ τῷ ἀϊδίῳ λόγῳ συνενωμένην. Οἷον ὃ λέγω τῇ 
αὐτογόνῳ καὶ αὐτοκινήτῳ, καὶ τῇ ανεχοίσῃ πάντα, καί τῇ νοερᾷ καὶ τῇ διακοσ-- 
μητικῇ τῶν ὅλων (scilicet οὐσίᾳ) . . . συνάπτει . .. Καὶ τοῦτο τέλος ἐστὶ τῆς 
παρ᾽ «Αἰγυπτίοις ἑερατικῆς ἀναγωγῆς (Sect X. c. 6). 

6 Sect. V.c. 18. p. 133. 

7 Sect. V. c. 18.-p. 133. 

_ 8 Abt τὸ μὴ ζωὸν ζῶντι, ὥσπερ τῷ καϑαρῷ τὸ δυπαρὸν . . . μολυσμόν τινα 
ἐντίϑησιν. Sect. VI. ο. 2. p. 145. Comp.c. 1. p. 144. 
9 Sect. If. c. 13. and c. 11. 


10 Sect. IV. c. 11. p. 114. c. 12. p. 114, 115. 


564 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


they have totally different ideas of what is good and just from those of _ 
mankind.! 


§ 132. 


This philosophy, the elements of which had long existed in the east, 
was moulded, in its progress to the west, into a system which met there 
with incomparably more approbation and celebrity than it deserved. 
To come nearer to the purpose of our investigation, it was particularly 
well received in those countries to which the apostle’s letters were di- 
rected. Long after its first introduction, when Paul had converted the 
Ephesians, a large number of magian and theurgic books were 
brought by their owners and burned in Paul’s sight (Acts 19:19). Αἱ 
an earlier period, too, this city was celebrated in this respect ; and the 
᾿Αφέσια ἀλεξιφάρμακα and “Epéove γράμματα are represented by an- 
cient writers as famous means of procuring power over demons.” 

There exists to this day among the ruins of Miletus a public docu- 
ment, viz. an inscription on one of the gates of the city, which testifies 
how firm in these regions was the belief in theurgical notions.* 1 will 
venture ta cite a portion of it as evidence on this point : 


LHEOT2.4 
OTR 
ALHI 
ATIE 
OTAAZON 
THN WDOALN 
MIAHCI2QN 
KAITTANTAC 
TOYCKATOI 
KOTNTAC 
APXATTEAR1 ®TAACCETAI : 
HHOAIC MIAHCI2QN 
KALTEANTEC O1 KAT.... 


The Synod of Laodicea was obliged, so late as the 4th century, to is- 
sue several edicts against the worship of angels, against magic and in- 
cantations. So deeply rooted were these opinions, that several centu- 
ries could not extirpate the remembrance of them. 


1 Sect. ΕΥ̓͂. c. 4. p. 108. 


2 Menandri et Philemonis refiquie. Ed. Grot. et J. Clerici. p. 140. Erasm. 
Adag. Chil. Cent. 8. num. 49. Plutarch. Sympos. Quest. L. VII. Quest.5. O¢ 
μάγοι τοὺς δαιμονεζομένους κελεύουσι τὰ ᾿Εφέσεα γράμματα πρὸς αὐτοὺς καταλέγ-- 
εἰν καὶ ὀνομάζειν. 


3 Voyage ἀ᾽Ἴ14]16, de Dalmatie,de Grece,et du Levante, par Spon. Part I. p. 
423. Amst. 1679. 


re. er rr rrt—C 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


σι 
a 
χι 


ᾧ 188. 


Now this theory is strikingly characterized by the expressions of the 
apostle. 

He calls the system of his opponents a philosophy, which cannot be 
reconciled with Christianity : φιλοσοφία ov κατὰ Χριστὸν (Col. 2: 8), 
an angel-worship, ϑρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων (Col. 2: 18), a demonology, 
διδασκαλίαι δαιμόνων (1 Tim. 4: 1). 

Further, he terms it γοητεία (2 Tim. ὁ: 13), which is the peculiar 
expression used by the ancients to designate magical arts and enchant- 
ments. Tongs, according to Hesychius, is μάγος, κόλαξ, περίεργος, and 
γοητεύξε is ἀπατᾷ, μαγεύει, φαρμακεύει, ἐξαίδει, κι τ. λ. 

Paul compares ‘these teachers with Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8). 
These, as we have before seen, were, according to ancient tradition, 
the enchanters, who withstood Moses by their ατίβ. Their names were 
so celebrated in the science of magic, that they were not unknown to 
the New Platonists themselves. 

The apostle, in exhorting the Ephesians to equip themselves with the 
armour of faith, and to fight manfully, tells them (6: 12 seq.) that this i is 
the | more necessary, as their warfare is not against human power, οὐ 
πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, but against spiritual beings. In enumerating 
these, he names in ‘order the magian Classes of spirits, aoyas, ἐξουσίας, 
and particularly. the κοσμοχράτορες, and likewise places their abode 
in the upper region of the air, εἐς τὸν ἀέρα, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. 

Moreover, in the Epistle to the Colossians, in order to give them a 
high and reverential idea of Christianity, and to magnify the glory of 
Jesus, he says, that all existences, not even the spiritual world excepted, 
were created by him and are subject to him. He then selects the ma- 
gian appellations, for the purpose of showing that the supposed demon- 
ocracy was entirely subject to his authority, whether ϑρόνοι, or κυριότης- 
τες, or ἀρχαὶ, or ἐξουσίαν ete. (Col. 1:16). He also uses a term pe- 
culiar to the theurgic system, viz. πλήρωμα, to denote the original 
cause of all material and spiritual existence, from which, as the highest 
conceivable cause, all intermediate causes have proceeded, declaring that 
the origin of all things i is to be referred to Jesus, and that the πλήρωμα 
dwells in him: ὅτε ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοιχῆσαε 
(1: 19. 2: 9. Eph. 1: 28). 

At last, in order completely to demolish the whole system, he declares 
that Christ, by the work of redemption, had conquered the whole spirit- 
ual world, that he had dragged the ἀρχάς and ἐξουσίας in triumph as 
vanquished, and that their dominion and authority were at an end 
(Col. 2 : 15). 

What he says, too, of the seared conscience of the false teachers to 


1 Targum Jonathan, Exodus 1: 15.7: 11. Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXX.c. 2. p. 48, 
Vol. V. Bipont. —Apul. Orat. de Magia, T. I. Bipont. p. 94. “‘ Ego sum ille Mo- 
ses, vel Jannes, etc.” It may hence be seen that the emendation in the last edi- 
tion of Pliny’: A Mose etiamnum et Jotape,”’ is not correct. Comp. Greg, 
Abulpharggius, Dynast. I. p. 26. Pharaoh's daughter gave Moses if 


Cps+ sul 2 ready Baril dy, to be instructed by them. τ 


566 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


whom he refers, of their frauds, their avarice etc., is certainly more ap- 
plicable to those men who taught and practised magical arts than any 
others. Noclass of men in all antiquity are more generally charged 
with such characteristics than these pretended confidants of the mystic 
powers. 

Paul’s strenuous opposition to a distinction of meats and to absti- 
nence from wedlock evidently had reference to them, and his censure 
of bodily exercises arose from their recommendation of them, and their 
requisition of baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparation, as 
the sole conditions on which it was possible to obtain communication 
with spirits. 

It was these, then, that the apostle had in his mind; who, when they 
adopted Christianity, formed that sect of the professed followers of Je- 
sus which assumed the name of Gnostics, and which history accuses of 
having been, under all the various modifications of one and the same 
system, invariably addicted to magic arts. Other adherents to this sys- 
tem, among the heathen, formed the sect of the New Platonists, to the 
number of whom belong the Syrian philosophers, as well as some-of the 
Egyptian, such as Plotinus and his disciples. 


ᾧ 134. 


REMARKS ON RECENT ATTACKS UPON THE TWO EPISTLES TO 
TIMOTHY AND THE EPISTLE TO TITUS, 


We have considered above (§ 113) certain charges brought against 
the Ist Epistle to Timothy. Soon after these were made, there appeared 
an opponent, not only of the Ist Epistle to Timothy, but alsoof the 2d, 
together with the one to Titus, i. e. of all the three pastoral letters, as 
he calls them. He brings charges against them before the tribunal of 
criticism, which he supports partly by reasons deduced from their lan- 
guage and peculiar style, and partly by historical difficulties in relation 
to them.! 

He noticed that certain expressions occurred only in these Epistles, 
and were not to be found in any other of Paul’s writings. As to the 
mere ἁπαξ λεγόμενα, e.g. inl Tim. 1: 5, τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας, and 
2:10, ἐπαγγελλόμεναι ϑεοσέβειαν etc., it cannot be expected that I 
should take any notice of these; for there is not one Epistle of Paul 
which has not, as is very‘natural, many such. On the other hand, 
however, any peculiar phraseology in regard to the false teachers and 
their tenets, which is common to all the three Epistles, deserves more 
attention. Their doctrines are called wvdoe and γραώδεις μύϑοι 
(1 Tim. 1:4. 4: 7. 2 Tim. 4: 4. Tit. 1:14); to which let us add the 


1 Kichhorn’s Einleit. in das N. T. I[Id Bd. Ist Halfte. ὃ 246 seq. 

2 Henry Planck, in his ‘‘ Bemerkungen uber den ersten Paulinischen Brief 
an den Timotheus” (p. 51,52), reckons 54 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the Epistle to the 
Philippians, 57 in that to the Galatians, and 45 in those to the Ephesians and 
pe eanes in the Ist to Timothy he reckons 81 ; in the 2d, 63; in that to Ti- 
tus, 44. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 567 


still stronger denomination βεβήλους xevog wriag (1 Tim. 6: 20. 2 Tim. 
2:16). On the other hand, correct doctrine is διδασκαλία ὑγεαίνουσα 
(1 Tim. 1:10. 2 Tim. 4: 3. Tit. 1: 9. 2: 1), λόγος ὑγιῆς and λόγοι 
ὑγεαίνοντες (Tit. 2: 8. 1 Tim. 6: 3. 2 Tim. 1: 13). Religion is εὐσέβεια 
(1 Tim. 6: 3. 2 Tim. 3: 5. Tit. 1: Letc.). In two of these Epistles yev- 
éadoyiae (Tit. 3.9), and γενεαλογίαν ἀπέραντοι (1 Tim. 1:4), are 
censured. 

In his writings generally, Paul has not spoken expressly of the false 
teachers ; but, as 6. g. in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, 
he merely alludes to their opinions, and casts them into shade by the side 
of the principles of Christianity. Whether it arose from the forbear- 
ance, which he wished should be exercised towards them in public 
(2 Tim. 2: 25 seq.), or from his reluctance to interrupt the solemn tone 
of these Epistles by any digressions, or from both these feelings togeth- 
er, certain it is, that only in the Epistles to his friends and assistants in 
the ministry, particularly in those to Timothy (1 Tim. 4: 1—9. 6: 3—6. 
2 Tim. 2: 16—19, 23. 3: 1—10. 4: 3—5), has he described this mis- 
chievous class of men. Some of them he even mentions by name in_ 
these Epistles; and he makes evident allusion to them in the Epistle to 
Titus (1: 10—12. 14—16. 3:9—12). Now, in doing this, he has made 
use of language for which there was no occasion when he was not 
speaking of these things, or was speaking of them in a different way, 
language which, employed in confidence, treats the subject in its real 
light: μύϑους, γραώδεις μύϑους, βεβήλους κενοφωνίας. He like- 
wise employs very appropriate contrasts, representing the condition of 
those led astray to be a mental malady, νοσῶν met ζητήσεις (1 Tim. 
6:4), comparing the false doctrines to a yayyoacva (2 Tim. 2:17), and na- 
turally terming the opposite, healthful doctrine, healthful instruction, 
λόγος vytns, διδασχαλία ὑγεαίνουσα. ᾿ 

Among these mental aberrations, he reckons the γενεαλογίας, with 
which in one instance he connects the epithet ἀπεράντους. These can- 
not be properly interpreted as referring to the Jewish custom of preserv- 
ing their lineage. ‘They were rather a part of the φιλοσοφία ov κατὰ 
“Χριστὸν (Col. 2: 8), the ϑρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, (Col. 2: 18), διδαο-- 
καλίαι δαιμονίων (1 Tim. 4: 1); i. 6. of the philosophical system of the 
time, which for certain purposes inculcated a gradation among spirits 
and their derivation from each other. 

In this philosophical system, the whole of religious worship, including 
all the various species of ϑρησκεία, was called εὐσέβεια. On this ac- 


1 Jamblich. De Myst. Sect. V.c. 91. p. 136.—Ovx ἐκ μεροῦς χρὴ» οὐδὲ ἀτελῶς 
συνυφαΐίνειν τοῖς ϑείοις τὴν ἐπιβάλλουσαν svoéPevay.—Sect. V.c. 18. p. 133. Ev δὲ 
τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς εὐσέβειας μυρίοις, καὶ δὴ ἐν τῷ ϑυηπολιυκῷ μέρει κ. τ. Δ. Itis tobe 
observed, likewise, that in the religious language of the time εὐσεβής was equiv- 
alent to σεβόμενος (Acts 10:2. 7). Hence εὐσέβεια was sometimes used to ex- 
press the secondary idea of conversion from heathenism to Judaism, and to de- 
note Jewish piety. Thus it occurs in Josephus Antiq. cap. 2. n. 5. καρπὸς εὐ-- 
σέβειας; and in Ant. L. cit. c. 2.n.4, τὸν ϑεὸν εὐσεβεῖν is to adopt the Jewish 
religion, and c. 4. n. 1. ἡ πρὸς ϑεὸν εὐσέβεια is the adoption of Tadaiaith To re- 
commend this was not the apostle’s object ; and hence, in Epistles to whole 
churches, where he had to guard against misunderstanding or misinterpretation 
on the part of a promiscuous cullection of persons, he had reason to avoid this 
expression. 


568 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


count Paul, in the Epistle under discussion, is earnest against the εὐσέβ- 
eva of these men (2 Tim. 3: 5. 1 Tim. 6: 5.2 Tim. 3: 12 , 13), and con- 
trasts with their opinions the exalted doctrine of genuine εὐσέβεια 
(1 Tim. 3: 16, and 6: 3), retaining the word but correcting and refin- 
ing the idea. 

"Thus we need no longer be surprised that these expressions do not 
likewise occur in other writings of the apostle, in which he is speaking 
_ of totally different things, or in which he alludes to the same errors and 
errorists, but speaks of them in a different way. It is only in the Epis- 
tles to his friends, and particularly in those to Timothy, that he has en- 
tered into a minute description of these men and their errors, for the 
purpose of inciting his younger assistants to caution and watchfulness. 

In a similar way we may explain why in the Epistles to Timothy the 
apostle calls himself x7ovE καὶ ‘andorodos, and διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν (1 
Tim. 2:7.2 Tim. 1:11). On the subject of his appointment as apostle of 
the Gentiles, he has expressed himself fully in but two of his Epistles to 
entire churches, viz. those to the Romans and Galatians. For, in the ca- 
pacity of teacher he was bound to observe uniformity in his conduct to- 
wards all believers, and not to exhibit a preference for either of the two 
branches of the Christian school; nor was he to concede to either a 
prior claim to his services, so long as he could avoid it. In the Epistle 
to the Romans, in which he defends the cause of the heathen against 
Jewish presumption and arrogance, he avows himself (11: 13) in part, 
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐθϑνὼν ἀπόστολος, apostle of the Gentiles, without 
forsaking the Jews or at all resigning his interest in their welfare ; ; and 
in the 15th chapter he gives his labors in behalf of the heathen the 
aspect of a fulfilment of ancient promises, and justifies them further by 
the cooperation of Jesus Christ, by means of which he labored success- 
fully to subject the Gentiles to the Messiah. In the Epistle to the Ga- 
latians, in which he opposes the commixture of Judaism with the doc- 
trines of Christianity, he maintains his apostolic authority against such 
as ranked him, in respect to divine illumination, below the apostles at 
Jerusalem, by stating the fact that these apostles themselves had ac- 
knowledged his high vocation and authority to convert the heathen, and 
had accounted him their equal (2: 6—10). He permits the fact to 
speak for itself, without drawing any inferences from it in favor of his 
office as apostle to the Gentiles, because the subject which he was 
treating did not require any such enlargement. ‘Thus much has he 
_ said to entire churches on the subject of his relation tothe heathen. It 
is plain that, in these cases, he speaks not hastily, but with self- 
restraint and circumspection, that he might not mortify the believers 
converted from Judaism, by declaring the Gentiles to have been the 
principal, and themselves only a secondary and subordinate object of his 
mission. Inthe Epistles to Timothy he had nothing of this kind to ap- 
prehend, and to a man from whom he had nothing to conceal on the 
subject he could express himself definitely and without circumlocution 
respecting the chief purpose of his ministry and direction of his efforts : 
Lam an ambassador to the Gentiles, their apostle and teacher. 

Another source of objection is the asseveration πιστὸς 0 λόγος. This 
occurs three times in the first Epistle to Timothy, again in the second, 
and also in that to Titus (1 Tim. 1: 15. 3: 1. 4: 9. 2 Tim. 2: 11. Tit. 3: 


a 


—— νον" 


al eel 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 269 


8), but is not foundinany other Epistle of Paul. Let us see what is 
the case in his other Epistles. In these, instead of the words πέστος ὁ 
λόγος, he employs as asseverations the expression πέστος ὁ ϑεὸς (2 
Cor. 1: 18), μάρτυς μού ἐστεν ὁ Geog (Rom. 1: 9. Philipp. 1:8), ὑμεῖς 
μαρτυρὲς καὶ ὁ ϑεός (1 Thess. 2:10). Also, ἀληϑείαν λέγω, ἐν Χρισ- 
τῳ * ov ψεύδομαι (Rom. 9: 1, which is repeated in 1 Tim. 2: 7). One 
still more solemn is, ἐγω δὲ μάρτυρα τὸν ϑεὸν ἐπικαλοῦμαι ἐπὶ τὴν 
ἑμὴν ψυχὴν (2 Cor. 1: 28). He even uses one in the form ΟΥ̓ prayer, 
and with a doxology: ὁ ϑεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ]ησοῦ Xovo- 
τοὺ οἶδεν, ὁ ὧν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτε οὐ ψεύδομαι (2 Cor. 
11:91). These expressions are indeed very different from the one 
first mentioned ; but it is obvious to remark here also, that the cases 
were different in respect to the different Epistles. We know that these 
latter asseverations were addressed to a large number of persons of dis- 
similar dispositions, to whole churches and congregations, in writing to 
whom he appeals for confirmation to God and Christ. On the contrary, 
the affirmations in the other cases were not intended to be awfully 
solemn ; they were addressed only to friends, and their whole empha- 
sis is comprised in the words πιστὸς 0 λόγος, which were sufficient for 
friends who were acquainted with the apostle’s sentiments and the im- 
port of the words. 

As to the general phraseology of these Epistles, their distinguished 
opponent himself admits that ‘‘they have much of Paul’s manner in their 
language,” and shows this by several examples. He likewise perceived 
δὰ κάλων which their principles and reasonings bear to those of 

aul. 

But, he continues, has their language entirely the same characteris- 
tics as that of the apostle’s Epistles which are acknowledged to be 
genuine? Has it not more ease and perspicuity ? etc. A very singu- 
lar objection! Is not this always the case? Are not ease and perspi- 
cuity special characteristics of letters to friends, while compositions in- 
tended for a larger circle, and writings on matters of business, in re- 
gard to the impression and effect of which we are anxious and appre- 
hensive, bear marks of the state of mind in which they were com- 
posed? It is an unreasonable course, to take writings of the latter 
description as a'standard by which to measure Epistles to friends, and 
because these do not agree with the standard in all respects, to reject 
them ; as though the priest’s mantle and his private dress must be of the 
same fashion. The assertion which is afterwards made by the oppo- 
nent of these three Epistles, that the other writings of Paul are far more 
unstudied and careless than these, and were, apparently, rather hasty 
than elaborate compositions, is, when stated thus generally, absolutely 
false. 

The question, How it happened that. Marcion did not insert these 
three Epistles in his ἀποστολικὸν was probably intended as an argu- 
ment of an external character. If we consider their contents, we shall 
be set at rest on this point. In them, and in them alone, we find un- 
sparing denunciation of the heretical systems which were springing up in 
Asia by the side of Christianity, and a description of the character of 


1 Eichhorn’s Einleit. in das N. T. ΠΙ. Bd. Ist Halfte. § 247 seq. p. 317, 19. 
72 : 


570 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


their authors, by no means flattered in any of its features. Such descrip- 
tions afforded occasion for comparisons, materials for parallels, which it 
was most agreeable to avoid. On this account it did not seem advisa- 
ble to Marcion to take pains himself for the preservation of such docu- 
ments, or to admit their authority by receiving them into his apostolical 


Codex. 
§ 135. 


The objections of this learned man which have been hitherto enu- 
merated are general, and applicable to all the three Epistles alike. 
He now proceeds, however, to present historical difficulties which re- 
spect each of them separately, and which, in his opinion, prove it to be 
impossible that Paul should have written them. As I have assigned to 
the Epistle to Titus the first place in the order of time, I will give it the 
same in the present discussion. 

‘The various opinions in regard to the voyage of the apostle to Crete, 
which occasioned the Epistle to Titus, may be estimated as is thought 
fit; I am responsible only for my own. But I can hardly recognize 
them under the distortion which they have undergone.! I am in per- 
plexity ; I believe that I expressed myself with perspicuity, and reluc- 
tantly repeat what I have already said. Paul determined, after his first 
European journey, to visit Palestine. He embarked at Corinth, and land- 
ed at Ephesus (18: 18,19). ‘There were two different ways, I supposed, 
in which he might have arrived at Crete; either from having embarked 
in a vessel which, for reasons connected with its freight or other business, 
touched at Crete on its passage to Ephesus, or from having been driv- 
en thither by astorm. ‘The first supposition I regarded as not improb- 
able, inasmuch as Apollos, who sailed from Ephesus to Corinth (Acts 
18: 24—19: 1), likewise touched at Crete, and was commended to the 
good offices of Titus there (Tit. 3: 13) ; whence it would seem to have 
been no uncommon route of intercourse between Corinth and Ephesus. 
I did not, however, reject the other possibility, from the fact that Paul, 
in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, refers to three shipwrecks of 


which no mention is made in the Acts, and which, notwithstanding, . 


demand a place somewhere in the course of events. These are the two 
contingencies which I presented as accounting for the circuitous pas- 
sage from Corinth to Ephesus by way of Crete. The first was left 
unnoticed ; the second was assailed. Luke, it is said, does not appear 
to have known any thing of such astorm. But this whole portion of the 
history is passed over without detail; itis merely hinted at: ἐξέπλει εἰς 
τὴν Συρίαν----κατήντησε δὲ εἰς ”"ELqscov. What was the reason that 
Paul embarked fer Syria and, instead of going thither, landed at Ephe- 
sus? A trifling difference, amounting to only thirty days’ journey by 
land,” and ten, at least, by sea! Let an explanation be given how it 
happened that the apostle got so far out of his way, and then it may be 
said that there is no reason for supposing any storm. The other argu- 
ments by whichI supported my opinien require no additional remark. 


1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. III. Bd. Ist H. § 250. p. 376. 


_ 2 The distance stated from Ephesus to Antioch, the capital of hither Syria, 
is literally authenticated. Philostorg. H. E. L. 1. c. 3. Διεστώσης δὲ καὶ τῆς 
“Ἐφέσου ἐκ τῆς ᾿«Ἰντιόχου ὁδὸν ἡμέρων μάλεστα τριάκοντα. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 571 


The objections in relation to Nicopolis concern others; I have des- 
ignated my Nicopolis, and no attempt is made to prove that my opin- 
ion in relation to it is not perfectly correct, admitting my general position. 


§ 136. 


Next in order comes the first Epistle to Timothy. We have before 
shown the relation which it sustained to historical events. Had the re- 
cent opponent of this Epistle paid suitable attention to our remarks, he 
would have had fewer objections to make. Instead of doing this, he 
has occupied himself particularly with the hypothesis of Mosheim,! 
which presents a fine opportunity for accumulating objections to one so 
disposed. 

Passing over the historical difficulties which the learned opponent of 
the Epistle urges, not so much against the Epistle, as against the opin- 
ions of Mosheim and Benson, whose merits I honour, without, however, 
coinciding with their ideas on this subject, I feel myself called upon te 
reply to what he says of the view of the Ephesian church which lies at 
the basis of this Epistle, and the representation which it gives in regard 
to Timothy. 

Ts it credible, it is asked, that the church at Ephesus should have 
continued so long without teachers, and have been so completely igno- 
rant respecting ecclesiastical arrangements, as the Ist Epistle to Timothy 
would lead us to suppose ? 

The apostle’s first business was to communicate instruction; and 
until this had been done for some time he was not able to select from 
among the great number of believers those who were at once reputable 
in their lives and best qualified for the ministerial office. The appoint- 
ment of teachers, therefore, was always one of his latest concerns 
{1 Tim. 5: 22). Another point, too, is to be considered. When the 
apostle was founding a church, he shared the office of teacher with ne 
ene; he stood alone as the divine deputy. In other business he had 

Titus and Timothy for his assistants. It was not till the apostolic work 

was concluded, and Paul left the place, that it was time to surrender 
the church to the charge of others; on which account he postponed 
doing so till Pentecost, the solemn day of the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
which he had designated as the limit of his stay at Ephesus. An up- 
roar, however, drove him from the city at an earlier period; and hence 
nothing remained but to appoint Timothy over them, and to exhort 
them to respect him as his deputy. ; 

Further; the Epistle does by no means represent the Ephesians to 
have been ignorant of ecclesiastical arrangements. ‘They might easily 
have become aequainted with them at Colosse, Laodicea, and elsewhere. 
Paul even considered it superfluous to instruct them respecting the 
mode of electing their officers, the duties of the bishop, presbyter ete., 
or the respective limits of their official functions. 

They might easily understand, moreover, that a quarrelsome person 
or a drunkard ought not to be made an elder of a church, which should 
be a pattern to the rest of the world in respect to purity of morals. But 
this is not the point to which Paul directs attention ; he speaks of such 


1 Eichhorn, Einleit! in das N. T, IIld. Bd. 1. H. § 248. p. 333—238. 


572 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


as were once of this character, but had now reformed and become mem- 
bers of the church. ‘These, after their reformation, might be equally 
virtuous with others, and might perhaps excel them in capacity. Now, 
if such presented themselves as candidates for offices in the church, 
were their claims to be admitted, or not? ‘This was the point to be de- 
eided. In the church, considered by itself, there might be little scru- 
ple as to their appointment; but, considering the reputation to be main- 
tained by the church among those without, they ought not to be admit- 
ted as candidates. Among their heathen fellow-citizens they were more 
notorious for their vices than for their reformation, which was of a pri- 
vate and noiseless character. If such persons were known to be officers 


in the church, the reputation of the whole body of Christians was en- — 


dangered. Most of the directions in this Epistle in regard to church- 
officers are, like these, not instructions as to their duties, but restrictive 
and preventive in regard to the claims of importunate persons. 

The case is the same as to the νεόφυτοι, who might venture to pre- 
sent themselves as candidates for offices, while there were in the church 
older Christians, who had been more thoroughly tried in faith and doc- 


trine. So too, in relation to the women who might claim to be enroll- © 


ed among the widows and to share in the benefactions which they re- 
ceived (5: 9—17). 

Then as to Timothy himself. He is, it is said, according to this 
Epistle, a novice in every thing ; and what an inconsistency ishere! A 
short treme before, Paul described him in one of his Epistles to the Co- 
yinthians (1 Cor. 4: 17), as a man thoroughly acquainted with the Chris- 
tian system, as he himself invariably inculcated it; while, on the other 
hand, in the Ist Epistle to Timothy the apostle 15 obliged to direct his 
attention to the first principles of doctrine, that he may know how to 
conduct (1 Tim. 3: 16). Let any man, who can, comprehend this, ex- 
claims here the opponent of this Epistle.! 

Still it is not so very difficult of comprehension. It is one thing to 
be thoroughly acquainted with a system in its whole extent, and to be 
able to answer questions and solve doubts in regard to it, and another 


to be able to select from the whole, according to the pecuhar wants 


and circumstances of a particular place, those doctrines which need to 
be enforced there more earnestly than in other places. The latter was 
the point which the apostle had in view, viz. what was suitable to the 
local condition of Ephesus, and, with reference to this point, far from de- 
tailing his system as though he was writing to a learner, he merely fur- 
nishes one whom he knew to be well informed on the general subject a 
concise suggestion, which, to us, who are not so well informed, consti- 
tutes one of the difficult passages in the New Testament. 


Consider for a moment the subjects of moral instruction which are — 


enjoined upon him by Paul, withthe words, ταῦτα παράγγελλε (1 Tim. 
4: 11. 5: 7 seq. 6:17). We cannot suppose that Paul imagined Tim- 
othy to be ignorant that it was not bodily exercise but godhness which 
was profitable to salvation, that the morality of a wanton widow was 
not on a very secure foundation, or that the silly pride of wealth was not 
becoming in a Christian church. The apostle, as every one must see, 


1 Eichhorn, Hinleit-in das N. I. 14, Bd. 1. H. ὃ 248. p. 340. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 573 


merely takes notice of certain local vices, against which it was 'Timo- 
thy’s duty to warn those under his care. Viewed in this light, other 
similar charges which have been made against this Epistle become null 
and void. 

The opponent of this Epistle proceeds to contrast the representation 
of Timothy in 1 Thess. 8: 1,2, and 1 Cor. 4: 17, viz. as well skilled in 
the business of his calling, with that in the Ist Epistle addressed to him 
by Paul, in which he appears to be a novice without any knowledge of 
affairs. Let us not be disturbed by the cases adduced. The fact that, 
Paul sent him to the Thessalonians, with the charge of encouraging 
them to perseverance in the doctrines which they had been taught 
(1 Thess. 3: 1, 2), and that he likewise sent him to Corinth as his de- 
puty, with the important commission to explain and solve, from his 
knowledge of the apostle’s sentiments, such doubts as might still 
exist in regard to the subjects of the Ist Epistle to this church, does 
indeed prove that Timothy was a peculiarly trust-worthy agent ; 
but neither of these commissions bore any comparison with that which 
was now entrusted to him. He had never before stood at the head of a 
numerous body of Christians, empowered to direct their ecclesiastical 
affairs, the appointments to the ministry, and to other offices in the 
church. Thus we have here the same Timothy, but another state of 
things. ΤῸ be able and learned isa different affair from possessing 
that experience and knowledge of mankind adequate to the proper 
performance of duties in which a high degree of these qualities is re- 
quisite. ‘To supply the want of these was the principal object of Tim- 
othy’s more experienced instructor. 

It is true that Timothy ranked as colleague of the apostle, and, what 
is more, was his friend and ἐσόψυχος (Phil. 2: 20); still he was not on 
that account the older or more experienced. It was six years after the 
time when Paul made Timothy his companion (Acts 16: 1 seq.) that the 
occurrence at Ephesus took place. When Paul associated him with 
himself, he was not yet an ἀδελφός, he wasonly a μαϑητής, a Christian 
disciple. If wesuppose him to have been at that time 20 years of age, 
he was yet a young man when the Epistle was written, and it was ne- 
cessary that Paul should rouse and quicken his caution against being 
led astray by prejudice, διὰ προχρίματος, or beguiled by partiality, 
ngooxdcorg (1 Tim. 5: 21). It is easy to see that Paul endeavors to sup- 
ply Timothy’s want of knowledge of the world and of mankind—not 
any want of acquaintance with Christianity. 

It was not the case when Paul sent Timothy to Thessalonica, nor 
when he sent him to Corinth, as it was when he left Ephesus, 
that circumstances prevented him from giving Timothy any prep- 
aration and instruction in respect to the subject of his commis- 
sion. As to the kind or amount of instruction and advice which 
he gave him on the first two occasions we have no account, to enable us 
to judge concerning the contents of the Epistle which in this case 
he was compelled to substitute for oral instruction. In default of 
these, we may be guided in our judgment of this Epistle by the gener- 
al truth, that the contents of any letter of instruction sent to ‘Timothy 
at Ephesus by the apostle, the degree of particularity which it must ex- 
hibit, depended not solely upon the character of the man for whom it 


574 PAUL’3 EPISTLES. 


was intended, but likewise upon the solicitude of him who wrote it. 
Thus, had we been able to form our estimate by the first standard, the 
latter would completely overthrow it. Even granting that Paul was un- 
necessarily particular in his directions to Timothy, the circumstance is 
but a confirmation of the old observation: ‘‘ Habet hoc solicitudo, quod 
omnia necessaria putat.”’ 

This anxiety about minute points thoroughly confutes the charge 
sometimes made against this Epistle, that it does not contain any of 
those particularities in which the apostle is so much wont to indulge. 
"There are so many references to the vices of certain classes and indi- 
viduals in the church, so many precautions and marks of anxiety, that 
our critic took umbrage at them, and drew from them the conclusion 
that Timothy was supposed and represented in this Epistle to be more 
deficient in experience and capacity than was really the case, and the 
church more ignorant, than they probably were. Might he not as prop- 
erly have inferred, that the writer was intimately acquainted with this 
charch, had clearly before his mind the character of each individual, 
and in particular, thé erroneous feelings of some as respected the organ- 
ization of the church, and, like a careful father of a family, when sep- 
arated from it, was desirous of noticing in his letter every thing which 
concerned his household, and of providing against every apprehended 
impropriety ? 

Our opponent requires us to specify some allusions to occurrences 
in the life of Timothy, and we refer him to the following. 1 Tim. 1:18. 4: 
14. 5: 23. 6:12. The objection that the apostle does not say a word 
of the progress of his journey and the state of his health, as is custom- 
ary in writing to friends, might as well have been omitted. Such mat- 
ters Paul was accustomed to leave to the bearers of his Epistles, who 
he took care should be trust-worthy men (Col. 4: 7. Eph. 6: 21, 22). 

The fact that so many topics are referred to in the Epistle, and the 
careful attention given to particulars, though it has been attempted to turn 
these circumstances to its prejudice, rather vouch for its genuineness. 
Such must have been the nature of an Epistle written by Paul with ref- 
erence to a church in the midst of which he had lived a long time; 
every member of which he had been acquainted with and had instruct- 
ed and exhorted in public and in private, and had urged with tears to 
repentance and reformation (Acts 20: 20, 31); and which had only be- 
come the dearer to him from his labors and anxieties on its behalf. 
Compare it with the Epistle to Titus. The latter, it is true, contains beau- 
tiful passages, expressive of elevated feeling, but is, notwithstanding, in 
the main a business-letter, more general in its nature, written with a sen- ἡ 
timent of contempt for the abandoned people among whom Titus was 
to commence the duties of his office. It seems to have originated mere- 
ly from the dictates of duty, connected with half-extinguished hopes. 
- On the other hand, the Epistle to Timothy is written with anxious at- 
tention to particulars, is indicative of solicitude and numerous trifling 
apprehensions, of sympathy and‘affection. 

Sometimes, too, the apostle’s condition gleams plainly through it. 
Expelled from Ephesus, and uncertain whether the unquiet state of things 


1 Plin. Epist. L. VI. Ep. 9. 


ee ee ee See ὝΕΚΟΡΞΞΙΣ 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 575 


at Corinth would permit him to appear in the midst of that church with- 
out insult, he sometimes cast his eyes back upon Ephesus with a hope 
that the commotion might have so far subsided, as to allow him to ap- 
pear there again, through the favor and intervention of the principal men 
of the city (Acts 19: 31). At times he seems to count most on this pos- 
sibility ; at times to trust more to the Corinthians. Both these hopes 
are alluded to together in 1 Tim. 3: 14,15; and in 4: 13 the first re- 
curs again. It would seem as though, pressed on opposite sides by two 
misfortunes, he could not determine which was the greatest. 


§ 137. 


We will now direct our attention to the 2d Epistle to Timothy. I 
must here recur to the observation that there would not have been room 
for all the objections made against it, had my remarks, which were not, 
I think, entirely superficial, been properly regarded. I refer particu- 
larly to the objection respecting Trophimus and Erastus (2 Tim. 4: 20). ἢ 

The next difficulty relates to Aquila, whom the author of this Epis- 


‘tle salutes as though he were at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 19), while, not 


long before, Paul sent him a salutation as being resident at Rome 
(Rom. 16: 3). But the period of time between these two letters 
amounts to more than three years; and that one should change his 
place of residence once in three years is not to be reckoned as an im- 
possibility which overthrows the genuineness of the Epistle. It is even’ 
possible that he possessed at that time a spacious house at Ephesus 
(1 Cor. 16: 19). 

Another objection I must present in the very words of my learned op- 
ponent. Would the apostle, he says, in order to animate and confirm 
the fortitude of his friend, have mentioned merely the persecutions 
(2 Tim. 3: 11. Comp. Acts 13: 14—52. 14: 1—6) of which Timothy 
had not been an eye-witness, inasmuch as they occurred before his con- 
version? Would he have passed over in total silence the far more cruel 
ones to which he was subjected at Philippi, at Thessalonica, at Jerusa- 
lem, and which took place under Timothy’s own eyes? etc. 

In examining 2 Tim. 3: 11, wesee that Paul commences an enume- 
ratio: ἐν ᾿ΑἸντιοχείᾳ, ἐν ᾿Μκονίῳ, ἐν Avorgors. He does not pursue it, 
however, but passes to general phraseology, οἵους διωγμοὺς κ. τ. λ. 
The reason why he mentions Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, is plainly, 
that he meant to commence with his earliest journey among the Gentiles ; 
and the reason why he does not pursue the enumeratio further is, that 
Timothy, having been an eye-witness, could pursue it himself. Con- 
scious of this, Paul passes to general language, and dispenses with a 
long catalogue, which would have been superfluous to Timothy. 

As to what this learned writer says in opposition to those who refer 
the composition of the Epistle to a second imprisonment at Rome, it 
does not bear against me, nor, in my opinion, against the Epistle. 

Whoever maintains this Epistle to be an ideal composition, belies its 
character. It is evidently an effusion of high-wrought feeling on the 
part of one who had just passed through the severest storm in his life, 


1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das Ν. Τ᾿ ΠΠ4 Bd. 1. H. § 249. p. 358 seq. 


576 PAUL'S EPISTLES. ἘΣ: 


and had breasted that storm without any assistance. All but Luke had 
previously consulted their own safety, and abandoned the apostle alone | 
and unfriended to his fate. Even Titus had not evinced sufficient cour- 
age to venture anything in behalf of his master and friend. There was 
now, indeed, a momentary calm; but a second storm was certain, 
which it wasto be feared would be as violent as the former. ‘These af- 
flictions and grounds of complaint against his friends, the apostle in a 
dignified manner refrains from noticing particularly, through the whole 
Epistle, until near its close, when he speaks of them briefly, with emo- 
‘tion, but yet with forbearance (4: 6 seq.) 

From the beginning to the end of the Epistle, however, there is evin- 
ced a gloomy suppressed feeling of danger and of abused confidence ; 
and the latter, not so much intentionally as on account of the predomi- 
nant tone of his mind, is directed towards one who had never given occa- 
sion for it. Soon after the commencement of the Epistle, the apostle occu- 
pies himself with accumulating all the reasons for assurance in respect 
to the fidelity and constancy of his young friend; the example of his moth- 
er and grandmother, his consecration to the high office of the ministry, 
the former proofs of his disposition, the promises of Jesus Christ, and 
the rewards of a future state of existence. Among these he scatters 
instructions and exhortations, as though, uncertain whether he should 
_ ever again see him, he was desirous before his death to give him his last 

advice, as a son on whom his hopes rested, and whom he silently regard- 
ed as heir to his apostolic office. 

The Epistle was evidently written with all those feelings which would 
naturally have arisen in the apostle’s situation, and after what he had 
just experienced. ΑἹ] the parts of it coincide with his condition, and 
many passages, it cannot be denied, are instructive and spirited. 

But what a contrast between this and the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
though they were written at no great distance of time from each other! 
In the one to the Ephesians, or, if we may thus denominate it, to the 
Asiatics and Phrygians, Paul speaks, if not without apprehension, yet 
with quiet composure, of his uncertain fate. True; but this difference 
might be the work of a few days. When he wrote the Epistle to Tim- 
othy, his first examination, in which he with difficulty escaped sentence 
of death on account of the violent attacks of his enemies, had evidently 
annihilated all his hopes (4: 14, 18); but when he wrote to the Ephe- 
sians, no fearful event of this kind had bowed his spirits. He first 
commends himself to their prayers, that he may fearlessly advocate the 
cause for which he was in bonds (Eph. 6: 18—21). The two composi- 
tions were separated by this intermediate event. In the Epistle to the 
Ephesians he shows himself ignorant of his danger; in that to Timo- 
thy we see that it has transcended his worst anticipations. 

The Epistle to the Asiatics and Phrygians, therefore, bears the stamp 
of that undisturbed self-possession which he at first enjoyed in his con- 
finement. In this situation, the youngest children of Christianity, 
churches of recent origin, which shortly before his imprisonment he 
had superintended, while resident in their vicinity at Ephesus, were up- 
permost in his mind. The remembrance of these rising churches filled 
him with joy and gratitude on account of the happy result of his mis- 
sion, and on the other hand with apprehension on account of their 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 577 


youthful standing, by which his mind was raised in his seclusion to that 
prayerful and solemn tone, which is so eminently apparent in this circu- 
lar Epistle. Such was the effect of the difference in circumstances ; 
in the one case we observe calmness, with pleasant recollections of the 
days of active life, and in the other a shuddering dread of a danger 
the extent of which was before unappreciated. 


§ 138. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Philippi was the first European city in which Paul preached. It was 
situated east of the river Strymon, in that part of Macedonia which was 
formerly considered as belonging to Thrace. Its situation, and the 
thoroughfare from Asia to Europe which was in its vicinity, are describ- 
ed at length by Appian.'' By Luke (Acts 16: 12) it is called a Roman 
colony, and the πρώτη πόλις of that part of Macedonia: and yet it was 
not so in point of rank, for Amphipolis took precedence of it ;* nor as to 
its situation in respect to the voyage from Troas (Acts 16: 11), for the 
apostle came first to Neapolis. Too solve this difficulty we must have 
recourse to numismatics. The denomination mewry πόλες frequently 
occurs on coins. Two or three cities in the same country or province 
assume this title at the same time ; and from these coins it appears that 
it signified nothing more than the enjoyment of certain liberties and 
privileges, not by any means exclusive. 

That it was a Roman colony, is confirmed by Pliny ;* and we learn 
from other sources that in this character it enjoyed distinguished privi- 
leges. The colony was founded or at least considerably enlarged, by 
Augustus himself.® 

The apostle at first was very well received here, and met with ready 
credence ; but he was accidentally imprisoned aid harshly treated, un- 
til he declared himself a Roman citizen, when he was restored to liber- 
ty. He then went to Amphipolis (Acts 16: 12 seq.) 


§ 150, 


*. When Paul was afterwards a prisoner at Rome, the Philippian Chris- 
tians, who must have become meanwhile a flourishing church, evinced 
that they were still grateful, and sent him assistance in his time of need 
(Phil. 4: 18). He wrote a letter to them, in which he expressed his 
thanks. This was probably the last Epistle which ke composed in 


1 Appian, De bell. civil. L. IV. c. 105, 106. 

2 Livius, L. XLV. c. 19. 

3 Eckhel, Doctrin. Vot. Numm. P. 1. Vol. IV. c. 6. p. 282. 

4 Hist. Nat. IV. 11. 

5 Digest. Leg. VIII. n. 8. “In provincia Macedonid Dyrracheni, Cassan- 
drenses, Philippenses. .. juris Italici.” Gfr. Walch, Dissert. in acta Pauli 
Philippens. Jena, 1726. Cellar. Not. Orb. Ant. Tol: 

73 


578 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Rome ; for he exhibits in it a clearer anticipation of deliverance tham 
in any previous Epistle (1: 12, 14). He even intended to permit Tim- 
othy, his most confidential assistant, to visit them (2: 19), and in a short 
time, ταχέως, to come to them himself. 


§ 146. 


The contents of the Epistle are as follows: I thank God and rejoice 
concerning the increase of your knowledge and love. My fortunes 
have been so beneficial in their influence, that some have even been in- 
duced by them to preach the Gospel, not always indeed from pure mo- 
tives, but still Christ is preached, at which I will rejoice (—1: 26). Let 
your conduct be worthy of the Gospel; live in unity; be disinterested, 
as was Christ, who humbled himself and took the form of a servant 
(—2:17). If it be my lot to die, I will rejoice, but the prospect of my 
liberation is daily brightening (—2:30). Have no confidence in circum- 
cision ; I have peculiar reason for confidencein it, but Christ is all to me; 
I long only for union with him. Follow my instruction, and listen not 
to false teachers (—4: 2). Continue steadfast in the Gospel and friends 
of every virtue. I rejoicethat you cared for me; your beneficence has 
always been eminently conspicuous. I and all the brethren salute you- 


§ 141. 
THE £PISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


This Epistle, as its plan, the actual character of its different parts, 
and almost every passage, testify, was written for Jews, and moreover, 
for such Jews as were minutely acquainted with the ceremonies of re- 
ligious worship at Jerusalem, the temple-service and things connected 
therewith. True, this acquaintance might be possessed by every learn- 
ed Jew; but a promiscuous collection of people (such as the author of 
the Epistle certainly addressed) could not be supposed to possess it, un- 
less they had opportunity to acquire it from actual and frequent obser- 
vation. 

Chrysostom, therefore, is correct in his general view, when he infers, 
simply from the knowledge previously requisite to understand the Epis- 
tle, that it was written to Jews in Palestine. All who admit that the 
original language of the Epistle was Hebrew adopt this opinion. 

As clearly do such circumstances respecting the Christian church to 
which the Epistle was addressed, as are scattered through it, direct us 
to Palestine and Jerusalem. Some of its teachers and Jeaders had al- 
ready distinguished themselves by an exemplary martyrdom in honor 
of the faith (13:7). This had been the fate of two of the principal 
Christians in Jerusalem, viz. James and Stephen. 

The readers of the Epistle had already endured many trials in be- 
half of the truth; some had been made, under torture and insult, ἃ 
gazing-stock to the multitude. Many had been cast into prison, and 
had suffered the spoiling of their goods (10; 32, 34). Such persecu- 


ἐκ ate ἃ, alti ee ee > eal 


oo 


PAUL'S EPISTLES.. 579 


tion by the public authorities on account of religion had not yet been 
seen out of Palestine and its capital, anywhere in the Roman empire. 
The government did not deviate from its well-known universal tolera- 
tion till the time of Nero’s persecution.! 

All this had already befallen them. Only one thing was wanting. 
They had not yet, as in the days of the Maccabees (Heb. 11: 34—39), 
defended their religion at the expense of blood and life (12: 4).2 Mat- 
ters had not yet arrived at such a pitch even in Palestine. No slaughters 
and massacres had yet occurred among the people. Hatred towards 
Christianity had as yet contented itself with a few victims, such as 
James and Stephen; not because the Sanhedrim wanted disposition to 
proceed further, but because it wanted the power under the Roman 
government. 

Those to whom the Epistle was sent were strongly inclined to apos- 
tasy ; for which reason the writer in many passages very forcibly repre- 
sents the serious character of this step, the difficulty of retracing it af- 
ter it had been taken, and the peril attendant on it (3: 7—4: 13. 6: 9, 
4 seq. 10: 19—32, and 12:25). The Jews were indeed always ob- 
jects of complaint in many churches, for the vehemence with which 
they maintained the obligation of their institutions even upon Chris- 
tians. But a ferment whicl could not be suppressed by any of the 
apostles, not even by James himself, and which avowedly looked for- 
ward to the refusal.of obedience and the dissolution of the church as 
no very remote occurrences, such wild zeal for the law that no hes- 
itation was felt to cut off thousands of believers from Christian com- 
munion for the most trifling reason, was exhibited in Palestine only at 
the close of the administration of Felix (Acts 21: 17, 23 seq.). The 
whole tenor and tendency of the Epistle were shaped by this condition 
of things. 


ᾧ 142. 


The Jewish religion in Palestine was particularly alluring and seduc- 
tive, on accountof its external pomp and splendid ceremonies, which 
agreeably occupied the imagination and all the senses ; while, on the 
contrary, the Christians, simple and noiseless in their assemblies, were 
only a body of retired and quiet friends to virtue, without high priest, 
altar, or sacrifices. 

The Jewish feasts were so many days of universal festivity through- 
out the nation, on which men from all parts of the country met together, 
became acquainted with each other, and confirmed acquaintances al- 
ready made. It was these which excited affection and fraternal feeling 
among the whole people, and kept up an unparalleled spirit of nation- 
ality. Many of these feasts, as commemorations of ancient national 
benefits, roused every sensibility in favor of Moses and the Jaw ; others 
were consolatory, like the feast of expiation, on which the high priest 


1 Gibbon, Hist. Decline and Fall of the Rom. Emp. Vol. Γ. chap. 2. 


2 It is not true that any slaughters or massacres had yet occurred among the 
populace ; and yet this supposition is Kichhorn’s principal argument that the 
Epistle could not have been written to Palestine (Kinleit. in das N. T. III. Bd. 
2d. H. § 266. p. 486). 


580 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


appeared before God in the most holy place and made atonement for 
the sins of the whole people. . 

All this Christianity wanted, and among the inhabitants of Palestine 
the deficiency was ἃ subject of reproach. Many minds, which were not 
prepared to worship in spirit and in truth, could not be satisfied or per- 
manently controlled by such a system. When other circumstances 
were added, such as persecution and awakened patriotism, as was the 
case when the final rebellion was maturing, many readily resolved to 
give up a religion which did not seem to supply the place of that of their 
ancestors. 

Objections of this nature, which local circumstances first occasioned 
and strengthened, the writer was obliged to obviate, and it was neces- 
sary that he should satisfy the Jews respecting them, in order to prevent 
their relapse. When they extolled above every thing else the preemi- 
nence of the law, which they received by angels and by Moses, the man 
of God, and objected to Christianity that it took its origin from a des- 
pised and suffering man; when they accused it of having no offerings, 
no high priest, and what was so important to sinful men, no sin-offering, 
and no feast of atonement, and of wanting every thing that made religion 
venerable and consolatory to the Jews; such important objections 
could not remain unanswered without injury to the cause of truth. 


§ 143. 


The contents of the Epistle are as follows: He shows, on the con- 
trary, the superiority of Christianity to the Mosaic law, from the dignity 
of its founder, who is even higher than the angels, to whom the Jews 
ascribed the giving of the law into the hands of the author of the Jew- 
ish constitution (—2: 12). Though he humbled himself and bore the 
sins of men, this was only that he might be amore merciful high 
priest (—3:). He then shows his preeminence above Moses, the medi- 
ator of the law, and solemnly warns them of the difficulty of returning, 
if they apostatize from Christ (—4: 14). ὃ 

He then passes to the high-priesthood, and shows that Jesus was ap- 
pointed to this dignity by God, and emphatically warns them not to ven- 
ture the step of separation from him (—6: 20). He then shows the na- 
ture of the high-priesthood of Jesus; that he is not a priest of a Jewish 
order, but of the order of Melchisedeck, who in dignity excelled even 
their forefather Abraham,! and all his descendants, Aaron and the tribe 
of Levi; that Jesus was even superior to Melchisedeck, was a priest of 
the new covenant, of unequalled rank, who entered into the holiest 
of holies to atone for the people with blood, but not that of goats; that 
it was not necessary for him to do this every year, as it was for the 
Jewish High Priest ; that he entered once only with his own blood, 
and by this offering had atoned for all men; that therefore no offer- 
ings were necessary in future, and a new order of things, a new dispen- 


1 Abraham is not, it is true, the principal subject here ; but he was indispen- 
sable to the writer’s purpose. According to the well-known saying of the Jews, 
the Messiah is certainly superior to Abraham, Moses, and the ministering an- 
gels: nny “sxbyo IN HAA HweINWI EM IAN. DM. | 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 581 


sation, had arrived, that the ceremonies of the law were merely types of 
that which was actually exhibited in the new religion (—10: 19). 

If, now, we have certain access to God through Jesus, our punishment 
will be the sorer if we cast him from us. ΤῸ continue his adherents 
will indeed require courage, but faith will impart this, Faith is hence- 
forth the way of justification and union with God; or rather it has 
always been so to all righteous and holy men, and ought to be to those 
whom he addresses; it should cheer them in their sufferings (—12: 
12). They have come to a holier Jerusalem, and to the mediator of the 
new covenant; they have another altar of sacrifice, and another offer- 
ing, viz. Jesus, who died without the city, as the sin-offering was for- 
merly burned without the camp. 


§ 144. 


In what language was this Epistle originally written? Some of the 
Christian fathers assert that it was originally composed in Hebrew. 
Thus (e. g.) Clementof Alexandria. According to him Luke transla- 
ted it into Greek, whence this Epistle and the Acts resemble each oth- 
er very much in style and coloring.' 

Origen, however, is not inclined to regard it as a translation, but ex- 
plains its origin in another way. He thinks that the general thoughts 
were expressed by the apostle Paul, and arranged and clothed in their 
present phraseology by some one who listened to their oral delivery.” 
Such is his opinion, and about its validity he seems to have no doubt. 

Thus a Hebrew original was not, to his knowledge, supported by his- 
tory. This supposition had no more value in his eyes than his own hy- 
pothesis, which he at least considered to be as well-founded, if he did 
not give it the preference. 

But he seems, it will be said, to adduce historical authority; for, in 
proposing the question, who was the author of this work as respected its 
written composition, he says expressly : ἢ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φϑάσασα ioto- 
οἷα, the ἱστορία that has come down to us decides in favor of Luke or 
Clement of Rome. 

But ἱστορία here does not mean history; it has the general sig- 
nification of information, account. His language is: ‘‘ The Epistle is, 
according to the testimony of the ancients, to be ascribed to Paul; but 
who gave it its written form, God alone knows. The ἱστορία of some 
has come down to us, who say that Clement of Rome composed it, and 
of others who regard Luke as the one who committed it to writing.” If 
some said one thing and some another, and God only knew the truth of 
the matter, the expression ἱστορία is certainly not to be taken in the 
sense of history. Besides, the ἱστορία did not relate to the question 
as to a Hebrew original or the contrary, but only to the question, to 
whom, in case Paul only furnished the ideas, which were written down 
by another, the merit of thus composing it was to be ascribed. 

The intended statements of the ancients, therefore, were mere con- 
jectures which were thrown out in order to explain the difference of 
style which it was thought was perceived between the Epistle to the 


1 EueboH BAVIOws ¢ 2 Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. 


582 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Hebrews and the other writings of the apostle; and as such they do not 
in the slightest degree limit our investigations. 

From internal evidence the original cannot by any means have been 
Hebrew. In the second chapter, v. 6, 7, 8, the author cites from 
Ps. 8 the words: What is man?—and yet thou hast, put all things in 
subjection under his feet, πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑπὸ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. 
This word ὑπέταξας, thou hast subjected, is the foundation of many ex- 
pressions in this connexion: v. 5. ov yao τοῖς ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξε τὴν 
οἰκουμένην; v. 8. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ narra, οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν 
αὐτῷ ανυποτακπτον---Οθϑωμὲν QUTW τὰ πᾶαντὰα UTLOTETAYUEVE. y 

Now there is no word corresponding to ὑποτάσσειν in the Hebrew, 
the same idea being expressed by a circumlocution: Thou didst put, or 
place, under his feet, 1239-70 “Mw >>. If then he wrote in Hebrew, 
and cited the text in Hebrew, the whole reference to the words of the 
text is lost ; and the expressions derived from and referring to ὑπο- 
τάσσειν could not have been employed in Hebrew, on account of the 
frequent recurrence of the entire periphrasis. Would he have written 
in this way? “ Thou didst put all things under his feet: but as to the 
angels he did not put all things under their feet: for, in that he put all 
things under his feet, he left nothing which he did not put under his 
feet: hence we see that all things are put under his feet.” 

In the 8th chapter he commences speaking of the promises of God in 
regard toa new covenant. He cites by way ofargument Jer. 31: 31, 
32 seq. where God promises aU M72, a new covenant, different 
from that which he had established with the fathers of the Jewish nation, 
and then argues that a new covenant, ΠΩ ΠῚ n™2, καινὴ διαϑήκη, 
annuls the old. He proceeds in this train of thought in chap. 9, des- 
cribing the ritual of the covenant and contrasting with it the priest and 
mediator of the new (v. 14, 15). 

The nature of the subject assures us, that if the author wrote in He- 
brew, he must have selected the technical word ΛΞ to designate the 
covenant with Abraham and the fathers. As, moreover, he quotes the 
words of Jeremiah, to whichthe chain of his discourse is linked and 
from which he makes deductions, he must so much the rather have re- 
tained 73 , and must have been guided in his deductions by the proph- 
et’s phraseology. We must not be misled, therefore, by the conjec- 


Ξ “ - y 
ture that perhaps the author used the word jashs>. 


Now though m3 has the signification of covenant, we know that 
it has not a second sense which the author of the Epistle soon brings to 
view, viz. that of a testament ; for which (he says) Christ died, because 
a testament becomes valid only through the death of the testator. % If, 
however, he wrote in Greek, and originally cited the Greek version, he 
must have employed the word διαϑήχη. This comprehends not only 
the first signification, but the second, viz. testament, and in fact contains 
good ground for the reasoning founded upon it, which could not have 
been based on the Hebrew. 

In the LOth chap. 4, 5 seq., he proves that the ancient sacrifices have 
ceased forever. He appeals in support of this position to Ps. 40: 7, 
where a person, whom he represents as the Messiah entering the world, 
saysto God : Thou desiredst not sacrifices, but a body hast thou prepar- 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 583 
ed me—to dothy will. Hence, he continues, the ancient sacrifices are no 
more of any avail, and the ποιῆσαν PéAnua,'the fulfilment of the will (of 
God) is enjoined instead (v. 9, 10). In conformity with this will, ἐν 
@ ϑελήματε, Jesus once for all made an offering of his body, τὴν προσ- 
φοραν tov σώματος, for the universal remission of sins. 

The argument turns on the passage: Thou desiredst not sacrifices, 
but gavest me a body, to execute thy will: σώμα κατηρτίσω μοί. 
This will Jesus executed by the offering of his body, Ola τὴν προσ- 
φοραν τοῦ σώματος, and thus the passage has been fulfilled, and all 
other sacrifices cease. Formerly the offerings were frequent, πολλάκις 
προσφέρων (v. 11); now one offering, μία ϑυσία, μία προσφορά, is suf- 
ficient, and this is satisfactory forever, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (v. 14). 

The offering of the body, προσφορὰ τοῦ σώματος, and the offering 
once for all, μέα meoogoga, have reference to the words of the Psalm, 
σώμα κατηρτίσω μοι, thou gavest me a body. But the Hebrew text of 
the Psalm says nothing respecting a body; it merely says: Mine ears 
hast thou opened (bored) %) ΛΞ 022iN. Thus,if the Epistle had 
been written in Hebrew, the deduction from the quotation as to the offer- 
ing of a body, and all which is said further of the single offering that 
made every other superfluous, could have had no foundation. It was 
only the Greek text of the Psalter which could furnish him with the ar- 
gument and render it valid. 

Moreover, even the supposition that these words were spoken of the 
Messiah and referred to the very moment when he entered the world, 
διὸ εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον λέγει (ν. 5), is likewise founded on 
the words: thou hast prepared me a body, aside from which there is no 
indication that this passage is to be understood of the Messiah’s en- 
trance into the world. 


§ 145. 


We have hardly done with one difficult question, before another still 
more difficult presents itself, viz. Who was the author of the Epistle? 
It is found in the collection of Paul’s writings, but by what right does it 
take so honorable a place? If characteristic ideas and characteristic 
arrangement of them, or, in other words, a peculiar cast of thought, be 
any indication of the author of a production, this writing, inmy opinion, 
is Paul’s. The ideas which constitute the basis of the Epistle to the He- 
brews all existed in Paul’s mind, and were aconstituent part of his gen- 
eral train of thought, from which they have passed into other productions 
of hispen. In these they are frequently found, in connexion with oth- 
er ideas, but have not received so complete a development as in this 
Epistle, because they were not, as here, the subject of discussion, but 
were merely accessory ideas. 

One of the principal points of view in which he considered the cer- 
emonies of public worship, as well as the other institutions of the Jews, 
and which was the special ground of the course taken by the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews in making an application of all these insti- 
tutions to Christ and his religion, is not barely discoverable in the 
Epistle to the Colossians, but is presented there in the same language 
in which it is expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. All these 


΄ 


584 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


things, Paul there says, are but the oxva τῶν μελλόντων (Col. 2: 17), 
as in this Epistle, likewise, they are only the oxva τῶν μελλόντων aya- 
ϑὼν (Heb. 10: 1. 8: 5), i. 6. inefficient symbols of salvation and mercy, 
shadows of things, of which the religion that was to come was to contain 
the reality, the thing itself.’ 

Paul has sometimes given specimens of this mode of application, from 
which we may infer what would be his manner of treating the subject, 
and how perfectly the whole tenor of the Epistle to the Hebrews accords 
with his spirit. ᾿ 

In Rom. 3: 25, he represents our salvation through the death of Jesus 
by a figure drawn from the Jewish ceremonials, saying that God set 
him forth as the lid of the ark of the covenant (which on the feast of 
atonement was perfumed and sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice) 
that he might blot out sins by his blood. It is true, however, that the 
word ἱλαστήριον may be translated an offering of reconciliation. Inthe 
Epistle to the Ephesians (5: 2), he represents the death of Jesus asa 
sacerdotal transaction, he having offered himself for us as a sweet smell- 
ing sacrifice, and being thus at once both priest and offering. 

The typical interpretations in the Epistle, in which the tabernacle 
is represented as an emblem of the entrance of Jesus into the holy of 
holies in heaven (Heb. 8: 5, 6. 9: 24) will not seem singular when we 
perceive that in 1 Cor. 10: the passage through the Red Sea is considered 


1 The fact that Philo says something of the same kind: τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν 
χρησμῶν oxds τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι (De Confus. Lingg.) is the principal 
reason given for the supposition which has been lately made, that the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is an Alexandrian production (Eichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. Βα: 
III. 2d Halfte, § 259. p. 442). Just as if Paul did not take the same view in his 
Epistle to the Colossians: ἅ ἔστε ome τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοὺ “Χριστοῦ 
(: 17). The second argument is, that the author ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews 
agrees with the Alexandrians in ascribing a secret and higher meaning to the 
accounts in relation to the ancient Jews. But it is not the case in this Epistle 
alone, as we see from 1 Cor. 10: 1—6 and 11, and from Rom.5: 14, where Adam 
is represented as τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, withreference to the universality of the 
consequence of what he did (Comp. 1 Pet. 3: 20,21). Thus the two views which 
have been mentioned are not exclusively Alexandrian; they are likewise Pau- 
line, and we recognize in them that erudite manner and that cast of thinking, 
which were characteristic of the age, and which Paul adopted together with, and 
in opposition to, his contemporaries. What can be more like Philo than the 
ἀλληγοροίμενα in Gal. 4: 21—31, compared with Philo ‘‘ De Cherubim (init.), to 
which [ have referred in Part Ist § 5, forthe purpose of drawing from the spirit 
of the times in arguing from and treating of the sacred books,some general in- 
ference as to the period when the Pauline Epistles were composed. Lastly, the 
learned writer above mentioned likewise adduces particular expressions of anal- 
ogous character in the writings of Philo andthe Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 
447). This similarity, however, is not confined to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
but extends to all Paul’s Epistles; as is not at all strange, considering that 
Philo and Paul were contemporaries. Losner’s extracts from Philo, it is well 
known, have reference to the whole N. Test. With reference to the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, Carpzov (in his Exercit. in Ep. ad Hebr.) as also, more recently, 
Schulz (Der Brief an die Hebraéer, Breslau 1818. p. 265 seq.), the latter for the 
special purpose of supporting the opinion we are now combating, has extracted 
from Philo many passages relating mostly to Melchisedeck, Moses, the high- 
priesthood, the worship of the sanctuary, and the sacrifices. Wherever Paul 
had discussed these topics, the passages cited would have been of use in explain- 
ing his meaning. The similarity of subjects is the cause of the mutual resem-. 
blance between the two writers. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 585 


to have been a type of baptism etc., a τύπος, just as in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews the holy places are evriruna τῶν ἀληϑινῶν. 

This principle and the interpretations founded on it are, in the earlier 
Epistles of the apostle, but indistinctly brought forward, rather intimated 
than detailed. We have sufficient evidence, however, that the views 
in which the Epistle to the Hebrews so richly abounds had already 
been formed in his mind, and would have been exhibited precisely thus, 
had his purpose led him to a more extended development of them. 

When Paul represented the ancient ceremonial institutions as mere 
shadows, to none of which belonged any expiatory efficacy, he was 
bound to answer the question in what way forgiveness and the divine 
favor were to be obtained, and had been obtained by pious men of old, 
ifthe law was of no avail to that end. Had he not given satisfac- 
tion on this point, the representation which we have mentioned would 
have wanted stability. The solution of this question was essential to 
his position, for that could not be sustained without it. 

The answer to this question is frequently presented by him, and is a 
peculiar one. He asserts that the divine favor never resulted from the 
religious observances of the Jews, but from faith, τῇ πίστευ. With this 
word he connected a peculiar idea, such as no other of the apostles 
attached to it. Πίστις with him had reference to the ἐπαγγελία, to 
the divine annunciation of the measures devised for human salvation. 
It signifies confidence and unshaken hope that they will be carried into 
effect (Rom. 4: 16—18, 20. Gal. 3: 5 seq.). 

This idea of the apostle is a fundamental one in the Epistle to the He- 
brews, and constitutes a considerable part of its contents (see 10: 38— 
12: 4, and many other passages). It appears in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews precisely as the apostle has elsewhere stated, explained, 
and enforced it. In Rom. 8: 24—26 Paul characterizes faith, with 
considerable circumlocution, as hope, in contradistinction to that which 
is seen and felt, ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη οὔκ ἐστεν ἐλπὶς--Οο οὐ βλέπομεν, ἐλπί- 
fouev, etc. In the Epistle to the Hebrews this description is condensed 
in the form of a definition (11: 1), ἐλπεζομένων ὑπόσεασις ov βλεπο- 
μένων. 

Faith, according to Paul, gives us superiority over the adherents of 
every other religion, ἵνα καυχώμεϑα én’ ἐλπίδι (Rom. 5: 2). In the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, too (3: 6), it is the ground of a καύχημα, which 
he calls καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος. 

It was this hopeful confidence, which both he and the author of this © 
Epistle understood to be meant by the passage: The just shall live by 
faith (Gal. 3: 11. Heb. 10:38). It was by this, according to both, that 
Abraham and Sarah, though past age, obtained a son (Rom. 4: 19. Gal. 
3:7. Heb. 11:1). It was this πίστες, founded on the érayyedia, which 
made friends of God before the law, and became an example and means 
of grace for all under the law, etc. ἡ 

Thus they coincide in their notion of faith, its reference to the énay- 
γελία, its justifying efficacy, and in certain arguments and examples in 
confirmation of the declared inefficacy of the law and the deeds of the 
law, and differ in the following respects: that the Epistle to the He- 
brews makes use of a multitude of examples, νέφος μαρτύρων ; that in 
the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians πίστις is openly contrasted 

74 


586 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


with the law and the ἔργοις νόμιθιυ", while in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
the unpleasant contrast is not directly presented, but rather intimated ; 
that in the other Epistles πέσεις εἰς Τησοῦν Χριστὸν is directly assert- 
ed to be the sole means of justification, while in this, without any ex- 
press conclusion by the writer, it is left as a matter of inference for the 
reader. 

Origen, therefore, was correct in asserting that τὰ νοήματα μὲν Παύ- 
λου εἰσί, for we find the views and sentiments of the apostle at the foun- 
dation of this Epistle; and not merely individual sentiments, but an 
entire class of them upon one subject. 

In this Epistle, moreover, we meet with his figures and ΠΕ ΕΙΝΕΙ ex- 
pressions. We will only cite those examples which have reference to 
Christian instruction. With Paul God’s word is.a sword (Ephes. 6: 
17). Soin Heb. 4: 12. Instruction for beginners and weak-minded 
persons is milk ; ; for those well-grounded in the faith, it is βρῶμα and 
στερεὰ τροφή, strong meat (Heb. 5: 13. 1 Cor. 3: 2), The first are 
νήπιον (1 Cor. 3: 1. Heb. 5: 13); the subjects of instruction suitable for 
them are στοίχεῖα (Gal. 4: 9. Heb. 5: 12). The well-grounded, on the 
other hand, are τέλειοι (Heb. 5: 14. 1 Cor. 14: 20), and their condition 
is TE ελειότης (Col. 3: 14. Heb. 6: 1). Whoever will examine further 
the apostle’s terminology on the subject of salvation, and the allegorical 
expressions and applications which he has used to illustrate it, will in 
these also recognize Paul. 

Besides thoughts and figures, a great many of Paul’s favorite words 
and phrases are to be found in this Epistle. Some of these have been 
collected by the industry of Wetstein,' and his collection has since 
been considerably augmented.” 


§ 146. 


On the other hand, passages have been selected from this Epistle 
which make against Paul’s authorship, and two of them are vaunted as 
decisive.? The first, repeated for centuries, and frequently answered, 
sometimes more and sometimes less happily, is Heb. 2: 1—5. ‘‘ There- 
fore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we 
have heard, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? 
which at the first began to be spoken by the, Lord, and was confirmed 
unto us by them that. heard him, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβε- 
βαιωϑη, God also bearing them witness,” etc. The author, it is said, 
here classes himself as one of those to whom that which the Lord taught 
had been communicated by his disciples. Now, so far from its being the 

case that Paul could use such language, he was even jealous of the im- 
putation of dependence on the instructions of the apostles, flatly dis- 
owned it, and asserted that he received his teaching from God and 
Christ (Gal. 1: 11, 12 seq. 2: 6—15. 1 Cor. 15: 8, etc.). 

But what are we to understand by the word us? Does it. mean us 


1 Nov. Fest. T. II. p. 386. 
2 Chr. Frid. Schmid, Hist. Antiq. et Vindic. Canonis. ὃ 249. p. 662—665. 


3 Dav. Schulz, ‘Der Brief an die Hebraer,” etc. Breslau, 1818. p. 125--130. The 
first objection had been already stated by GEcumenius ; the “ Scholia Greca”’ in 
Frid. Matth. N. T. contain a reply. 


a To “ἈΝ. 


-PAUL’S EPISTLES. 587 


‘Hebrew Christians, or us, Paul only? It is clear that the writer is 
speaking of many persons, in regard to whom it was to be feared that 
they might fail in fidelity to the Christian system ; and a sort of rhetorical 
figure is employed which is very common with the apostle. The wri- 
ter includes himself in the number of those whom he addresses, speaks 
of their necessities and failings, as if he shared them, without mean- 
ing by this that he did so in every particular. Just so Paul, in Rom. 
13: 11i—14. (e. g.) says: ‘‘It is time for us (those converted from 
Paganism as well as from Judaism) to awake out of sleep, to cast off 
the works of darkness, to walk honestly, not in rioting and drunken- 
ness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.” If 
the apostle be here taken iiterally, what must we not charge him with, 
on account of the word us? Just as little did he mean to claim all the 
gifts which were distributed to different persons for the preservation and 
extension of the Christian church (Rom. 12: 6 seq.), although he makes: 
use of the word us, meaning us Christians. Such figures of rhetoric 
will not allow a literal application to the writer. 

It is attempted to obviate these considerations by a distinction. ‘This 
mode of speech, it is said, may properly be used when exhortations and 
warnings are given, but not in historical statements. It is to be re- 
membered that as ἡμεῖς, ws, does not mean Paul only, but us who have 
this in common that we are Hebrew Christians, all valid objection 
against this mode of speaking is precluded. But does not the passage 
in fact contain an exhortation that they should guard against danger ; 
for (the thought is) if the slighting of the institutions of the old cove- 
nant occasioned severe punishments, how shall we escape punishment, 
if we slight a far higher institution, which proceeded from the Lord, 
was confirmed (to us Hebrews) by his chosen disciples, and attested by 
miracles and the gifts of the Holy Ghost? Does not this passage be- 
long to the class of warnings or exhortations? Though it does contain 
historical allusions, they are not themselves the subject of discussion, 
but are exhibited only in very general terms, in order to prove that the 
Jews would deserve punishment in case they should forsake Christiani- 
ty. These are not presented for the purpose of narration, but as an 
enumeratio, which runs rapidly through a series of occurrences, without 
reference to their accompanying circumstances, or the particular con- 
cern of any individual in them. 

Let us now turn our attention to the second passage. It has been 
regarded as inconsistent with the relation which Paul sustained to the 
Christians of Palestine, that he should say: ‘“‘ Pray for me, ἵνα τάχέον 
ἀποκατασταϑῶ ὑμῖν, thatI may be restored to you the sooner” (13: 18). 
He had nothing to do, it is said, with the churches in Palestine.! It is 
true he was not connected with them as a teacher; but he was in an- 
other capacity. He had brought to them from Galatia, Macedonia, and 
Achaia, on the very occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem and his im- 
prisonment there, charitable contributions which he had collected for 
them in the churches. They had, therefore, good reason to pray for 
their benefactor, that he might be restored to them again. 

It is further objected, that the officers of the churches which are ad- 


1 Schulz, “ Der Brief an die Hebraer” etc. p. 22 and 63. 


588 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


dressed in this Epistle, are not called πρεσβύτεροι and énioxonoe, as 
officers in the church are termed in the Epistles of Paul, but ἡγούμενος 
(13: 7, 17). But this was their proper appellation in Palestine, and 
confirms our position in regard to the destination of the Epistle. 
The churches of Palestine constituted an exception from the rest of the 
Christian churches in this respect, that their affairs were condacted, not 
only by presbyters, but by apostles themselves, as e. g. James and John, 
or by other men who took a distinguished part in the propagation of 
Christianity ; and these were called in this country, by.way of distinc- 
tion, ἡγούμενοι, such as e. g. Barnabas and Silas Acts (15; 22). 

The opponents of this Epistle thought they found swpport for their 
position in these passages ; but they were trowbled, on the other hand, 
by a friendly allusion to Timothy (13:23), of such a nature that it seems 
particularly suitable to Paul, whose confidential assistant Timothy was, 
and to whom he was, in a manner, exclusively attached. They were 
therefore obliged, if possible, to prove that Timothy was not attached 
to Paul at this time, which they hoped to do by means of a pretended 
difference between the mode in which Paul speaks of ‘Timothy in his 
writings and the mode in which he is speken of in this Epistle. Pau 
always speaks of himin his Epistles, it is said, as τέχνον, γνήσιον τέκ- 
νον, συνεργός, with commendation and affection, while the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews mentions him only in a cursory way: ‘‘ Ye know 
our brother Timothy, who is set at Hberty ; with whom, as soon as he 
comes, I will see you.” As tothe words: Ye know our brother Timo- 
thy etc., F certainly do not believe that Paul would have written so to the 
churches of Asia Minor and Europe, which Timothy had visited with him 
m the foundation of which he had cooperated. To the inhabitants and 
of Palestine alone, could he have used such half-doubting language as : 
Ye know Timothy, probably. For, though he accompanied Paul on 
his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20: 4), and, moreover, was not an ob- 
scure person, yet he was least known to the people of Palestine. The 
reason why he calls him merely brother, without further encomium, is, 
that he was not recommending him to any church on account of his 
being charged with a particular commission, as is the case in those 
Epistles in which he styles him his beloved son and his faithful fellow- 
Taborer (1 Cor. 4: 17. 1 Thess. 3:2). The expressions of friendship 
and affection contained in the Epistles to Timothy himself are of course 
not to be our standard here. It is likewise the case, however, in Jet- 
ters which he wrote to other churches, that he only terms him, Timothy 
our brother (2 Cor. 1: 1. Col. 1: 1). The last words: with whom, if 
he come shortly, I will see you, are peculiarly appropriate to Paul, and 
can be historically accounted for, if we suppose them to have been his. 
He promised the Philippians to send Timothy to them, as soon as his 
fate at Rome was finally decided. (Philipp. 2: 19—24); and the He- 
brews, that, as soon as 'Fimothy should have returned, he would make 
them a visit with him. The mission of Timothy explains the condition, 
ἐὰν τάχιον éyyérae, under which he promised the visit. A journey to 
the east was in the apostle’s contemplation. It was his design to pass 
through Macedonia (Philipp. 2: 24) to Asia Minor (Philem. 22), and 


1 Schulz. p. 14, 15. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 589 


thence to Palestine. It was necessary, however, that he should gain 
information beforehand concerning the state of things in these coun- 
tries, that he might not expose himself to his enemies to no purpose. 
This he did by staying for a time in Philippi, which was on one hand in 
Macedonia, and on the other, as it were, in sight of Asia Minor (Rom. 
15: 23. Acts 20: 3). Now, whether the account which he received from 
Timothy, or Nero’s persecution, which broke out in the autumn of 
Paul’s release, or both together, caused him to give up his proposed 
journey or not, we cannot tell. It is probable, however, that the old 
design of a journey to Spain was now revived (Rom. 15: 28), and put 
in execution (§ 84). 

However disinclined we may be, we must yet consider Paul as the 
author of the Epistle, so long as we have no good reason for supposing 
that ‘Timothy was not under his direction when the Epistle was written. 
Can the writer have been of less than apostolic dignity? No one with 
less authority could have presumed to present to the parent-land of 
Christianity his instructions and intervention in relation to such topics, 
under the very eyes of the apostles and of numerous witnesses of our 
Lord’s words and deeds. 


§ 147. 


While internal grounds speak so clearly and decisively in favor of 
Paul, so it does not appear that we have any reason to apprehend a dif- 
ferent result from a historico-critical investigation. We must simply 
make it a rule not to decide from individual declarations and detached 
statements, but to form our opinion impartially from a view of the whole 
history of the Epistle. 

Eusebius, in stating the opinions of the ancients in regard to what is 
called the Canon, ranks among the biblical works which were univer- 
sally acknowledged to be genuine the fourteen Epistles of Paul then 
comprehended in the Mss. of the New Testament, without excepting 
any one of them.' It cannot be denied that when he did this his atten- 
tion was directed to the Greek and oriental churches, rather than to the 
Latin. For he must have been specially familiar with the opinions and 
convictions of the former, considering his language, residence, and lit- 
erary education, and the libraries (at Caesarea and lia Capitolina) 
whence he derived his documents. He has, however, in another place, 
expressed himself more to the purpose: “‘ Fourteen Epistles of Paul, he 
says, are generally acknowledged and genuine, πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς; 
but it is not to be concealed that some depreciate that to the Hebrews, 
on the ground that the Roman church objects to it.’* Now these 
some, τίνες, may be Latins, (though it is not probable in this connexion), 
or they may be Greeks; it makes no essential difference which. In 
the first case, the writer has no reference at all to the general opinion of 
the Greeks, and in the second case, he only presents an exception from the 
general opinion of the Greeks, an exception which existed in the minds 
of individuals out of respect or prepossession towards the Romans, and 
which proves, according to the well-known rule, ezceptio firmat regu- 


eS 


ΠΕ "ΤΉ. 9 Euseb. ΗΕ. ὟΝ αὐτὶ 


590 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Jam, thatthe Greek church, taken as a whole, did not think as these 
some did in regard to the Pauline origin of the Epistle, but acknowl- 
edged it. 

Jerome, therefore, who had certainly perused a large number of the 
writings of Christian Greeks, did not exaggerate, when he asserted in his 
Epistle to Dardanus that Paul had always been acknowledged as au- 
thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews by all Greek writers, ‘‘ab omnibus 
retro ecclesiasticis ΟἿ οὶ sermonis scriptoribus.” 

Origen, too, expresses himself in the same collective way concern- 
ing the ancients. ‘This expression, used by a man in the third century, 
has a very important meaning, and would seem to carry us back near 
to the times of the apostles: ‘‘It was not without reason,” says he, 
“‘ that the ancients transmitted this Epistle to us as Paul’s production.”} 

‘There are other witnesses of the Alexandrian school in favor of this 
Epistle, both earlier and later than Origen. Dionysius, who is character- 
ized by his investigations respecting the Apocalypse as an intelligent 
and honest father, declares,in the work referred to, in favor of Paul.” 
Clement, earlier. than either, maintained the Pauline origin of this 
Epistle. 

Nor were investigations of this sort prosecuted lightly or unwarily in 


1 Οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ ot ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. Euseb. H. 
E.L. VI. 25. This celebrated passage in Origen, to which we have already refer- 
red in speaking of the language of this Epistle, still continues to be misinter- 
preted to the prejudice of the Epistle. The opinion of the Alexandrians, that the 
language of the Epistle differs from that of Paul, is the writer’s theme ; and the 
order of his ideas is as follows. 1. The style is not Paul’s; 2. for it has too 
much Greek regularity and elegance. 3. Yet, as to the thoughts, the produc- 
tion is not inferior to Paul’s Epistles. 4. Hence he (Origen) is of opinion that 
the thoughts are Paul’s; but that their phraseology and construction are the 
work of some one else, who reduced to writing what was said by Paul. Thus 
far he distinguishes between the words and ideas, what belongs to Paul and 
what does not; and then proceeds. 6. Any church which has regarded it as 
Paul’s production may retain its favorable‘opinion of it; 7. for it was not without 
reason that the ancients transmitted it to us as Paul’s production. 8. But, who 
composed this Epistle (referring to No. 5) is known to God alone; 9. some say 
Clement, others Luke. The propositions No. 1, 2,3, 4,5, exhibit his ideas in 
regard to the substance and the phraseology, and a mode of reconciling their char- 
acteristics. No. 6 asserts the propriety of regarding itas Pauline. No.7 alone 
contains a historical statement, the testimony of the ancients. Thus much as to 
who was its author. Nos, 8 and9. Who, however, according to the proposed 
theory, reduced it to writing, cannot be known; this merit has been ascribed to 
various persons. The historical statement on the subject is fully and definitely ex- 
pressed ; the rest of the passage consists of attempts to invalidate the objection 
drawn from the difference of language. 

Origen has always acknowledged this Epistle in his works, and very frequently 
cited it under the designation ὁ asroorodos and ὃ Παῦλος. We will refer to those 
passages only, in which the Epistle is mentioned by name. Kal ἔν τῇ πρὸς “EBoat- 
ους ὃ αὐτὸς Παῦλος (Comm. in Joann. T. 11. 6. 6). Ὃ δὲ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς 
“Ββραίους (in Joann. T. Χ, 6. 11). Ὡς ὁ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς “Ἑβραίους (Select- 
in Ps. Ps. 4:7). Ὁ Παῦλος “Εβραίοις φησί (in Ῥ5. 8: ὅ). ““έγει γὰρ ἐν τῇ πρὸς 
Ἑβραίους ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος (Select. in Thren. 4: 20), and the passage adduced by 
Lardner and others (Epist. ad African. ο. 9): “If any one, perplexed by this 
argument (taken from Heb. 11: 37), should adopt the opinion of those who de- 
prive Paul of this Epistle, against such an one I should make use of proofs 
from other quarters that the Epistle was Paul’s.” 


2 Euseb. H.E. L. VI. c. 41. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 591 


Alexandria. This city,it is well known, always possessed a multi- 
tude of able grammarians, who labored with great critical acumen on 
the writings of ancient classic authors, amended the text when it had 
been impaired, and distinguished on critical grounds between genuine 
~ and spurious works. 

This critical talent was exercised likewise upon the books of the New 
Testament, and particularly on this Epistle. The remark was early 
made that its style was strikingly different from that of Paul. Notwith- 
standing this idea, which would seem to lead directly to the supposition 
that Paul was not its author, no one ventured to deny that it was the 
apostle’s production. So strong was the conviction that it could not 
be shaken, even by weighty adverse considerations. 

Ways and means were sought to compromise the matter. The hy- 
pothesis of Clement and that afterwards presented by Origen are but 
attempts to reconcile the difference of style with history and the decla- 
rations of antiquity, which pronounced Paul to be the author. 

Clement, in particular, cites such an ancient declaration of a respect- 
able father, whom he calls the blessed old man, and who from the connex- 
ion was probably Pantznus. He inquires into the reason why Paul did 
not prefix his name and his title, ἀπόστολος, to his Epistle! I must 
here confess myself unable to comprehend how it is possible that men 
in modern times should suppose some Alexandrian to have been the au- 
thor of this Epistle, while in the Alexandrian church itself, the evidence 
in behalf of Paul reaches so nearly to the first century. If the author of 
these Epistles was an Alexandrian, where could the fact be known, if 
not at Alexandria 7 

To invalidate the testimony of Pantenus, it has been recently affirm- 
ed by a learned man, that when he proposed the query why Paul did not 
call himself apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he entertained doubts 
in regard to its authorship. It isastonishing hata scholar of such emi- 
nence should assert any thing so hastily. Were Clement and Origen 
ever in doubt in regard to the Epistle, though they proposed inquiries con- 
cerning it? Did Julius Africanus, and others before him, doubt as to the | 
Gospel of Matthew and Luke, because they sought the reason of the dif- 
ference between them in regard to the genealogy of our Lord? Long be- 
fore his time, Tatian, while yet resident at Rome and orthodox in his 
opinions, had drawn up biblical προβλήματα, which he and Rhodon after 
him, promised to solve.” Biblical questions of this nature must have arisen 
more naturally at Alexandria than at any other place, because there mgo- 
βλήματα and ζητήματα Ὃμηρικὰ, λυσεῖς ζητημάτων Ομηρικῶν, and 
such like subjects of inquiry, were common. Let us, as we ought, ex- 
amine the declaration of the blessed old man. His language is: As 
our Lord was sent among the Jews as the apostle of the Almighty (Heb. 
3: 1), Paul, particularly as his mission was to the heathen, would not 
presume to style himself apostle to the Hebrews, from reverence for our 
Lord, and because he had written the Epistle to the Hebrews out of the 
abundance of his zeal, although he was really a messenger and apostle 


1 Clem. Alex. Hypotypos. apud Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 14. Rob. Steph 
p. 62. ¢ 
2 Euseb. H. E. L. V. ο. 13. — 


7 τοΣ 


- Pele an 


592 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


to the Gentiles. Pantenus here represents as undoubted what he is — 


said to have doubted, viz. that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
and says that he had two reasons for withholding the usual introduction, 
Paul the apostle etc. ἃ ‘ 

In Lower Egypt the Epistle to the Hebrews retained its place imme- 
diately after that to the Galatians till about the fourth century, as we see 
from the list of chapters in the Codex Vaticanus ;! and it was not till 
about the time of Athanasius, that it was removed and placed after the 
2d of Thessalonians, which situation it now holds in Egyptian Mss. 
In the Upper Egyptian version it even stood before that to the Galatians, 
immediately after the 2d to the Corinthians,® which is deserving of no- 
tice in illustration of the ancient opinion respecting it in Egypt. 

Jerome connects with the account we have mentioned above, respect- 
ing the agreement of the ancient Greek fathers as to this Epistle, a dec- 
Jaration that the oriental churches likewise,? in the vicinity of which 
he lived so long in his solitary abode at Bethlehem, agreed in the same 
position. His statement is confirmed by Augustine’s assertion, that in 
the oriental churches the Epistle ranked among the canonical writings.* 
We shall suppose our readers to be acquainted with the canon of the 
church at Jerusalem, as stated by Cyril, from the first part of our Intro- 
duction ; nor shall we make particular mention of the evidence of Titus 
of Bostra (Contra Manich. L. Ill. c. 4 and 11), of Basil, the two 
Gregories, Epiphanius, Pamphilus, and Methodius. - 

Ephrem, the most noted of the Syrian fathers, appeals in several pas- 
sages to this composition, characterizing the writer by the designation, 
the apostle.5 James of Nisibis, Ephrem’s teacher, composed various 
Syriac productions as early as the third century, some of which have 
reached us in an Armenian version. He appeals in these to the Epistle 
to = Hebrews, under the designation, the apostle, or the blessed apos- 
tle. 

Soon after the middle of the third century we find in hither Syria, 
instead of individual fathers, a whole ecclesiastical council, the synod of 
Antioch, quoting the scriptures, and among other passages, Heb. 2: 14. 
_ 4:15. and 11: 26, in the summons which they issued to Paul of Samosa- 
ta before his removal from his station.’ Going back to the second 
century, we are able to appeal to the oldest version of the Syrians, a 
‘monument of their belief and conviction in regard to the canon. Now 
this, although it excludes some of the Catholic Epistles, contains the 


1 Hug, “ De antiquitate Cod. Vatic.” p. 23, 24. 
2 Zoega, ‘‘ Catalogus Codd. Coptic. in Museo Borgiano.” L. III. Codd. Sahid- 
ic. N. LXXX. p. 186. Engelbrecht, *“‘ Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica, p. X 


3 “ Nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, que inscribitur ad Hebreos, non so- 
lum ab ecclesiis ORIENTIS, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Greeci sermo- 
nis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi.”’ Epist. ad Dardan. 


4 “ Ad Hebreos quoque Epistola, qaamquam nonnullis incerta sit . . . magis 
me movet auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, que hanc etiam in canonicis ha- 
bent.”” Expos. in Epist.ad Rom. T. ΤΥ. Opp. Ed. Basil. p. 1180. 


5 Ephrem Opp. Syr.T. 1. p.400. . 
6 Galland, Biblioth. Patr. T. V. p. XVI. and p. LXXXVIII. 
7 Mansi, Collect. Concil. T. I. p. 1034. 


~~ 


PAUL'S EPISTLES. 593 


"Epistle to the Hebrews, which, as we proved before, when speaking of 
this version, is a genuine and original portion of it. 

If we have recourse to the heretics, we know that Manes, whose sect 
spread particularly in Syria and Mesopotamia, appealed to the authority 
of this Epistle to prove his position, that the Old and New Testaments 
did not derive their origin from one and the same author.! 

The Melchisedeckians, who originated with Theedotus (ἀργυραμοι- 
Bos or τραπεζίτης), elevated Melchisedeck above Christ, and in doing 
this relied on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 7: 3, and 7: 4,7).2 In 
the second century we have the Montanists, who first made their 
appearance in Phrygia, and extended themselves westward. ‘These 
founded their principal distinctive doctrines on the Epistle to the He- 
brews (6: 4), as we shall shortly see. 

The Epistle continued without opposition to enjoy this established 
authority and estimation among the Greeks and in the East; and it was 
not till the time of Arius that any church in these countries disputed 
its title. The Arians’ were the first Greeks whom history ai 
with denying its Pauline origin. 5 

This circumstance confers uncommon importance on the testimony 
of Eusebius in favor of this Epistle, and accredits his character as a 
historian, it being evident that he was not misled by any adherence to 
party into a want of fidelity to history. Theodoret even referred the 
Arians, on the subject of this Epistle, to the example of this their fel- 
low believer, that they might be edified by it and learn moderation.* 

* * * * * * * * * * * 


The primitive times of the church of Rome present us an illustrious 
witness for this Epistle in the person of Clement, who occupied there 
the station of the apostles after their death. In his Epistle to the 
church at Corinth, he quotes passages from it, as Eusebius and Jerome 
have already observed, and as we can see ourselves on examining the 
Epistle, which has come down to us. He does not, indeed, cite it under 
the name of the apostle, but makes use of it without mentioning the au- 
thor, employing its peculiar phraseology, αὐτολεξεὶ χοησάμενος, and 
juxta verborum quoque ordinem.® Nor has he designated by name the 
author of any book of the New Testament from which passages have 
been borrowed by him, except the Ist Epistle of Paul to the Corinthi- 
ans, the author of which is expressly mentioned, because his letter, like- 
wise, was directed to them, and a reference to the apostle by name 
was, considering the circumstances, very natural. We will not now 
draw any inference from the citations of Clement out of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews but that which Eusebius draws: ὅτο μὴ réov ὑπάρχεύ 


1 Epiphan. Her. LXVI. ὃ. 74. Ed. Petav. Eira πάλ λέγει ὃ αὐτὸς Mavis, ov 
δύναται ἑνὸς διδασκαλίου εἶναι παλαιὰ καὶ καινὴ διαϑήκη. “H μὲν γὰρ παλαιοῦ-- 
ται ἡμέραν εἕ ἡ ἡμέρας, ἡ δὲ & ἀνακαινίζεται ἡμέραν καϑ' ἡμέραν, πᾶν γὰρ παλαιού-- 
μενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ γίνεταε (Heb. VILL. 13). 

2 Epiphan. XXXV. or LV. § 1 (Heb. 7: 3); § 8 (Heb. 7: 4, 7). Comp,’ Ter- 
tull. De Prescriptione, towards the end. 

3 Theodoret, Prolog. in Ep. ad Hebr. Epiphan. Heres. LXIX. § 27. 

4 Theodoret, Prolog. in Ep. ad Hebr. an 

5 Euseb. H. Εἰ. L. III. Se Hieronym. in Catal. V. Clem. 


594 si isin EPISTLES. 


τὸ σύγγραμμα. But we must τῶν Τα that Eusebius, in his language, 
seems to have had a covert polemical reference to the western church, 
placing in contrast with it the Greek churches, which were supported 
by the oldest ecclesiastical document of Rome ‘itself in regarding the 
Epistle, not as a recent production, but as one of Paul’s writings : ὅϑεν 
εἰκότως ἔδοξεν αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγκαταλεχϑῆναιν γράμμασι τοῦ 
ἀποστόλου. 

Ireneus, too, in his book, Περὶ διαλέξεων διαφόρων, quoted from it, 
whether with or without the name of the author we do not know;}! 
while, on the other hand, in his books against the heretics, he has so far 
avoided the use of it, that only slight traces of it are here and there 
visible.” 

Now how shall we explain the strange procedure of the Greek father 
in this last work? 1 think it may be correctly explained from the cir- 
cumstances of the times and of his life. His ecclesiastical relations con- 
nected him with the western Christians, among whom he possessed 
consideration and authority. ‘These were called into active exercise by 
the sect of the Cataphrygians or Montanists. Commissions to Eleuthe- 
rus at Rome,? relative to these heretics, had even been performed by 
him on behalf of ie Gallic churches, before he had completed his he- 
resiological work.4 The third book was not written before the latter 
days of Eleutherus, and the whole was not finished till the time of his 
successor. 

Now these Montanists had recourse, in defence of their principle, 
that they who had been guilty of aggravated crimes could no longer re- 
main in the church, to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6: 4,5. This pas- 
sage was one of their chief arguments, as we learn from Jerome.°® 

But, even without his testimony, we should be persuaded of this by 
the actual fact in regard to the procedure of a zealous Montanist. ‘Ter- 
tullian warmly defended the doctrine of the Montanists from Heb. 6: 
4,5, in his book ‘ De pudicitia,” which he_wrote expressly in support 
of their position, and he laid more stress on this passage than on any 
other of his arguments. 

If, therefore, the fathers of the Latin church made use of this Epistle 
cautiously and fearfully, till they finally rejected it, history presents us 
with the reason of their doing so. For, that the proof-text was not easi- 
ly answered, may be inferred from the various attempts to answer it 
made by the ancients. 

Irenzus, it is probable, had not long been dead, when the opposition 
to the Epistle in the Roman church had extended itself widely. Caius, 

Tuios, one of its presbyters under Zephyrinus, declared expressly in a 
controversial work, that he acknowledged only thirteen Epistles of Paul, 
and did not regard that to the Hebrews as the apostle’s production. 


1 Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 27. Ἶ 

2 Massuet, Dissert. in Iren. D. III. Art. ἘΠ ae “ 

3 Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 47. ᾿ 
4 Massuet, Dissert. II. Art. IJ. n. 47. res 

5 L. IL; Adv. Jovinian. n. 3. “ Verum ne Montanus et Novatus hic rideant, 


qui contendunt non ἀποὺ renovari per peenitentiam eos qui semel sunt ‘illumi- 
nati,” etc. Heb. 6: 4,5 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 595 
The work was directed against the Montanists, and particularly against 
Proculus, one of their most learned advocates, τῆς Καταφρυγίας αἱρέσε- 
ὡς ὑπερμαχοῦντα. This circumstance, again, gives us satisfactory 
information as to the reason why this Epistle was so troublesome to him, 
and why he so positively rejected it. 

From this time the greater part of the Latins adopted these opinions, 
and, till the fourth century, they constantly denied that Paul was the au- 
thor of this Epistle! History, however, does not give ground for suppos- 
ing them to have been so unreasonable as to deny that the Epistle be- 
longed to apostolic times, and that its author was of that age.” How could 
they do this, when Clement’s Epistle from Rome was in so many hands? 
The author of the remarkable fragment in Muratori, who represents 
himself as living about the time of Caius, constitutes the only excep- 
tion, and was 80 ungracious as to denominate the Epistle “ apud Alez- 
andrinos Pauli nomine fictam ad heresin Marcionis.”* Thus the 
apostle himself must be termed a heretic, that a self-willed man may 
maintain his orthodoxy.* 


1 Eusebd. H.E. L. VI. c. 21. ᾽Ἢλϑε δὲ καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ Γαΐου λογιωτάτου ἀν-- 
δρὸς διάλογος ἐπὶ Ρώμης κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς Πρόκλον... ἐν ᾧ . . . τοῦ tegot 
ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μονῶν ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς ᾿Εβραίους μη) ουνα-- 
ρυϑμήσας ταῖς λοιπαῖς - ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ “Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίξεται τοῦ 
ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν. Hieronym. in Catal. V. Caius. “ In eodem volumine (dis- 
putatione advers. Proculum) epistolas Pauli tredecim numerans, decimam quar- 
tam que fertur ad Hebreos, dicit ejus non esse: sed et apud Romanos usque 
hodie Pauli non habetur.” Comp. Photius, Cod. 48. 


2 Hieronym. Catal. V. Paulus. Philastr. De Heres. c. 88. Primasius, Com- 
ment. Pref. in Ep. ad Hebr. 


3 Tom. II]. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Avi. p. 854. That in these words he intends 
the Epistle to the Hebrews is clear from the subjoined citation of Heb. 12: 15, by 
which he characterises the Epistle. 


4 I must here justify myself in opposition to Prof. Herm. Olshausen (“ Die 
Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien,” p. 281 seq.), for assigning this re- 
markable fragment to the beginning of the third century. I may have erred in 
not ascribing it like others to Caius himself; at any rate there is no necessity of 
supposing itat all older. The decision of the subject depends on the words: 
“ Pastorem nuperrime nostris temporibus in urbe RomA Hermas conscripsit, se- 
dente cathedra Romane ecclesi Pio episcopo fratre ejus.’’ The expression nu- 
perrime is indefinite ; but is rendered less so by the addition nostris temporibus, 
in ourtime. Hence nuperrime does not signify much more than ov πάλαι does: 
in a very similar designation of time in Eusebius (L. V. c. 28): οὐ πάλαι, αλλ 
ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων γενόμενος καιρῶν. Is it asked whether Caius could have been 
alive when Pius was at the head of the church of Rome? We know that he 
wrote under Zephyrinus, who became bishop of the church in the ninth year of 
Severus (Euseb. H. E. L. V.c. 28). It will be best for us to reckon from Hygi- 
nus, because we have a definite date in regard to his elevation to the episcopal 
office. It occurred in the Ist year of Antoninus Pius (Euseb. H. E. L. 1V. c. 10). 
At the end of four years he had Pius for his successor, who died 15 years after- 
wards (Euseb. L. IV. c. 11), i.e. in the 19th year of Antoninus. From the 19th 
year of Antoninus to the 8th of Severus, we must reckon as follows : the remain- 
ing 4 years of Antoninus, 19 for the reign of Marcus Aurelius, 13 for Commodus, 
and 9 of the reign of Severus; in all 45. Supposing Caius to have been 55 
years old when he wrote against Proculus under Zephyrinus, he of course lived 
during the supernumerary years under Pius. Thus, chronology .does not for- 
bid us to consider Caius and the author of the fragment as contemporary, and, 
indeed, the same person. Supposing the writer to have been a different per- 
son, he cannot certainly have lived any earlier than he, for Eusebius does not 


506 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Even the Montanists yelded to this opinion, and, in their polemical 
writings, ascribed no higher authority to the Epistle than was admitted 
to belong to it by their opponents, i. e. as being the production of some 
apostolic father, like Barnabas, Clement, etc. This was Tertulli- 
an’s course, who as early as the time of Zephyrinus, had been with oth- 
ers an observer of these disputes and of the procedure of Caius, and in 
a short time was the successor of Proculus in reputation and learning, 
and his warmest admirer: “ Proculus nostre virginis senccte et Chris- 
tiane ecloquentia dignitas.” 'To return to our subject. As the Epistle 
was denied to be Paul’s, Tertullian took it for what it was allowed to 
be by its enemies, and reasoned with such force as to make it, even on 
this ground, equal in authority and value, or very nearly so at least, with 
Paul’s Epistles. 

The passage is a remarkable one. It shows us how anxious he was 
to recover for the Epistle on one side what he yielded on the other, in re- 
gard to Paul’s authorship of it, and to refer it, at least mediately, to Paul. 
“Volo ex abundantia alicujus comitis apostolorum testimonium super 
inducere idoneum confirmandi de prozimo jure disciplinam magistro- 
rum. Exstat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebrzos, adeo satis auctorita- 
tis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se posuerit in abstinentiz tenore: Aut 
ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem. Est 
utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabz, illo apocrypho Pastore 
meechorum. Monens igitur discipulos omissis omnibus initiis ad per- 
fectionem magis tendere, nec rursum fundamenta peenitentie jacere 
operibus mortuorum, Impossibile est, inquit, illos qui seme] illuminati 
sunt, etc. Heb. 6:4,5..... Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit, et cum 
apostolis ducuit, nunquam meecho et fornicatori secundam penitentiam 
promissam ab apostolis norat” (De Pudic. c. 20). 

Thus were the two parties contending, when in the heat of the con- 
test a mew sect réinforced the Montanists. Circumstanees became 
pressing, and the orthodox had not leisure to become reconciled to the 
Epistle. About forty years after the declaration of Caius, at the time of 
the death of Cornelius, the Novatians appeared in Rome. They re- 
vived the position of Montanus in regard to repentance, and styled 
themselves the pure. In adopting his tenet, they also appropriated to 
themselves his arguments in its support, and the passage on which they 
placed special reliance was, likewise, Heb. 6: 4, δ. 

Jerome, in the Epistle before referred to, speaks of this passage.? 
Augustine, in citing it, alludes to the Novatians, whom he calls mundos 
(καϑαρούς), and refutes the opinion which they built upon it in respect 
to repentance.” Epiphanius considers these words as the principal 
source of their heresy.2 'Theodoret charges them with making use of 


mention any express opposition to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the west, earlier 
than that of Caius. Besides, the designations of time and place, which the au- 
thor of the fragment gives in regard to himse!f, the language whieh he has em- 
ployed (the Greek), and the character of the position he presents relative to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, all declare in favor of Caius. 

1 Hieronym. Ep. ad. Dardan. 

2 Augustine, De verA et falsd penitentid, C.3.L. IV. Opp. Ed. Basil. 1559. 


3 Epiph. Her. LIX. De Catharis. ὡΣφάλλει αὐτοὺς τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλον 
εἰρημένον, ᾿Αδύνατον τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισϑέντας x. τ. i. 


PAUL'S EPISTLES. 597 


the passage in support of error, and opposes his own interpretation to 
theirs! Macarius, the Egyptian, adds to the words in Heb. 6:4, 5, 
other passages in this Epistle, which were likewise misinterpreted, κατὰ 
NaBatvavwv φρόνημα." Abulpharagius even introduces a Novatian 
speaking, and proving his opinion from this passage.? Eulogius, Bishop 
of Alexandria, entered into an extended discussion in his book against 
the Novatians, for the purpose of analyzing this passage and defending 
it against their interpretation ; a long extract from which discussion is 
given us by Photius.* So truly was this passage the main argument of 
the heretics, that it required and employed the ability and ingenuity of 
the most noted fathers. 

Thus the conduct of the two churches, in regard to one and the 
same subject, was very different. ‘The Greeks endeavored to evade the 
argument by their mode of interpretation, while the Latins rejected the 
Epistle entirely. Circumstances contained the reason of this differ- 
ence. The Greeks were calmer and less interested spectators, while the 
scene of this controversy was among the Latins, in Rome itself, and the 
leaders of the respective parties were in their midst. The Latins had not 
leisure to look on, till an exegetical treatise was composed, which might 
be made use of to silence the disputants. Thus, while the Greek church 
admitted the Epistle, although the heretics regarded it as their princi- 
pal reliance, the Latins were compelled, on account of their situation, to 
take a more expeditious method, and to proceed as they did, viz. to de- 
ny the authority of the Epistle, the contents of which were unanswer- 
able, or else to be vanquished in the controversy. ‘This was the true 
reason of their procedure, and when Philastrius honestly admits that 
the public church-use of the Epistle, was interdicted on account of the 
Novatians,° he ought not any longer to be subjected to abuse for his as- 
sertion. 

What wonder now, that Cyprian, who had so many disputes in regard 
to the restoration of backsliders, does not even mention the Epistle, 
and indeed, seems to be ignorant of its existence? 

There is no doubt, too, that Hippolytus did not admit it, but he can- 
not in this case be considered a Greek, nor, as some would wish, an 
Oriental; for he was guided in his opinion on this point by Irenzus, 
and the work in which his declaration respecting this Epistle appears, 
was his history of heresies, which he composed in a great measure 
ὁμιλοῦντος ‘/onvaiov.® 


2 Macarii Monachi Opuse. ΠῚ, De Poenit. Galland. Biblioth. PP. T. VIII. 
Ρ. 32. ᾿ ‘ti 

3 Historia Dynastiarum. p. 137 Arabic text, and p. 86 Latin. 

4 Photius, Codex. 280. p. 880. Ed. Heschelii. 

5 Philastr. Adv. Her. c. 88. ‘‘Non legitur . . . . de penitentid propter Nova- 
tianos.”’ 

6 The principal passage relating to this point is Photius, Codex 121. p. 161. 
Heeschel., where Photius derived his representation from Hippolytus himself, in- 
dependently of Gobar. 


598 — PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


as Eusebius states, shared in their sentiments, and rejected the Epistle 
on the authority of the church of Rome. 

But what were the arguments presented by the Roman church? 
Was their procedure occasioned merely by the pressure of circumstan- 
ces, which it was desirable and necessary to conceal by false pretexts? or 
were the Montanist and Novatian disputes, which evidently and unde- 
niably had an influence upon it, merely the occasion of a well-grounded 
opposition, which the controversy but kindled and animated? Did they, 
or did Caius, adduce ancient declarations of credible men, or trustworthy 
historical witnesses and authorities, which pronounced against Paul and 
in favor of some other author ? 

In that case the dispute would certainly have worn a very different 
aspect; but far from appealing to the traditio ecclesiarum, to authorities 
of the earlier periods of the church, as was demanded in historical in- 
vestigation, and as was usual in regard to questions respecting the 
Canon and points of doctrine, the inquiry received a totally different di- 
rection. In the whole Latin church there is not one father, of whose 
talents and learning any monuments remain, who appears to have 
known any thing of such a traditio ecclesia, or of any historical proof. 
The question was made to rest on internal evidence alone. 

The Epistle, they said, is an anonymous composition, the author of 
which, contrary to Paul’s custom, no where names himself, and conse- 
quently, cannot be known.! Its style differs from that of the apostle, in 
its elegance and rhetorical finish, which he despised.” Besides, there 
occur in it, citations from the Old Testament which are no longer to 
be found in the prophets or other canonical books of the Jews.® 

These are the principal reasons brought forward by the Latins to jus- 
tify their opposition. There were others, as, 6. g. “quia addiderunt in 
ea quidam non bene sentientes, et quia factum Christum dicit,” etc. 
which, it is evident, bear no comparison with these. 

By such pretexts the Latins justified their procedure,and they, who in 
other cases knew very well how to make use of the argument from tra- 
dition, did not, in this, say a single word respecting the testimony of 
antiquity or the statements of earlier fathers. In short, history proper- 
ly so called did not to their knowledge afford the slightest evidence 
against Paul; and the whole dispute was conducted on exegetical 
grounds, the investigation and estimate of which are in our own power, 
and subject to our own decision. 

On the other hand, the two fathers, Jerome and Augustine, who, 
with their extensive erudition outweigh all other western authorities to- 
gether, were convinced of the genuineness of the Epistle by the testi- 
mony of the ancients. They therefore held up before their contempo- 
raries the traditio of the Greeks and Orientals, and labored to give 


|“ Ad Hebreos . . . ubi principium salutationum de industria omisit ... . 
unde nonnulli eumin canonem scripturarum recipere timuerunt.” Augustin. 
Expos. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. IV. Opp. Ed. Basil, 1556. p. 1180. Primasius Utti- 
cens. Pref. in Comm. in univers. Pauli Epp. 

2 “ Non ejus dicitur propter styli sermonisque dissonantiam. ‘ Hieronim. Cat. 
V. Paulus. ‘“‘ Quod rhetorice scripserit, et sermone plausibili.”” Philastrius. Her. 
c. 61. Primasius, 1. c. 


3 Hieron. Comm. in Esai. L. III. ο. 6. T. IV. Opp. p. 97. Valars. 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 599 


another direction to the general sentiment. They would not probably 
have succeeded, had they not been able to enforce their opinion by an 
ecclesiastical council. This was the third or fourth Carthaginian coun- 
cil, over which Augustine exercised great influence. In the catalogue 
of canonical books which it issued in the form of a decree of the coun- 
cil, it reckoned “‘ Pauli epistolas tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebreos unam.” 

From this time the Latins began to change their sentiments. Inno- 
cent, in his Epistle to Exuperius of Toulouse, in speaking of the canon, 
reckoned fourteen Epistles of Paul. The Epistle came into general 
use in the Roman and Latin churches, and the opposition to it ceased 
every where, with the- exception, however, of Spain. At least, Isidore 
of Seville, in the 7th century, had doubts in regard to it. But he is 
the only writer who expresses any at so late a period. Thus, under the 
pressure of circumstances, the Christians of the west disparaged the 
Epistle, then gave color to their procedure by such reasons as they could 
get together, and finally, when the storm of party had subsided, restored 
it to its rightful rank. 


§ 148. 


The author appends at the close certain circumstances, of such a 
character that no one acquainted with his situation could easily fail to 
recognize the apostle. He promises his readers that he will visit them 
in company with Timothy, who was always connected with Paul, was 
his pupil and assistant, and his companion at Rome. He mentions him 
as having been liberated from prison. He subjoins salutations from 
those of Italy, who perhaps were persons that had visited the apostle in 
prison, like the deputies from other churches. For he himself was not 
yet set at liberty; whence he commends himself to the prayers of the 
pious Hebrews, that he may be restored to them the sooner. At all 
events, Pau! could not fail to be recognized by these expressions at the 
end of the Epistle. 

But why did he not prefix his name at the beginning, if it was he 
who wrote the Epistle?) Clement of Alexandria, answers the question 
as follows: ‘‘ When Paul wrote to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced 
against him, he prudently omitted prefixing his name, lest he should 
excite aversion at the outset.”! It was certainly best that all those 
who were under the influence of prejudice when they received this 
Epistle, should first read, examine, judge impartially, and then decide 
for themselves. Should they afterwards suspect from cireumstances, 
and finally become convinced that it was from Paul, they would already 
have become acquainted with the contents, and the ideas would have 
been imbibed into their minds and fastened there to produce their 
effect. 

We have a second answer from Pantenus. He is of opinion that the 
usual salutation found at the beginning of Paul’s Epistles: Paul the 
apostle, etc., could not properly be made use of in an Epistle to the He- 
brews, inasmuch as he could not call himself apostle in reference to 
them, without giving offence (§ 147). Paul had certainly surrendered 


4 


1 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. 14. ay vel 


{᾿ 


600 τς - PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


the office of apostle as far as Palestine was concerned, and by express 
agreement taken the Gentile nations as the province of his mission and 
labors (Gal. 2:9, 10); and to call himself apostle to the Gentiles in a 
hortatory letter to the Jews, would bave been neither fitting nor concil- 
latory. 

A third answer may be drawn from the very plan of the Epistle. It 
begins with a rhetorical introduction, and has, generally, as little resem- 
blance to a letter as the oration Pro Lege Manilid. ‘As far as the dox- 
ology in 13: 12, it is entirely a thetorical production. It is not till after 
this conclusion that any thing occurs which could give rise to a query 
if the discourse might not be a letter. Now whether this manner was 
intentional, in order to avoid the salutation at the outset, and with it the 
name apostle, or whether it was chosen for other reasons, it is sufficient 
that to prefix a salutation, after the manner of an Epistle, would have 
been infelicitous, considering the character of the introduction and of 
the whole Epistle. 

All these replies are satisfactory. Noone of them excludes the oth- 
er, and hence there is nothing to prevent us from regarding them all as 
correct, if it be allowed that a reflecting mind may be determined by 
several considerations at once. 


§ 149. 


But whence, then, arises the dissimilarity between the style and lan- 
guage of this and of his other writings? The same mind reigns through- 
out the Epistles of Paul, it is true, but not always the same style. In 
the Epistles to the Corinthians, we observe the injured teacher, conscious 
of his worth and his deserts, cautious, benevolent, earnest, and vehe- 
ment; in the Epistle to the Romans, the scholar, with a dignified, dis- 
tant manner, the advocate of the Gentiles, abounding in Jewish learn- 
ing; in that to the Galatians, the language of paternal authority to a 
people of little refinement, too much inclined to place dependence upon 
their good works. How very different is the tone of the Epistle to the 
Romans from that of the Epistle to the Galatians, though their subjects 
are very nearly the same? ‘That to the Ephesians is solemnly devout ; 
that to the Philippians is affectionate and friendiy, but dignified ; that to 
The Hebrews is elegant and elevated. His situation and his relation 
to the churches are depicted with extreme accuracy in the style of 
each of his Epistles. 

As to his relation to the Christians of Palestine, he was not one of 
their teachers and paternal guides. He could never, therefore, adopt 
the tone which he might properly use towards churches which he him- 
self had planted and reared. 

If we consider the object which he had in view, viz. to weaken the 
impression of the splendid temple-service in Palestine, of the solemn 
offerings and imposing feasts, by showing that all this was constrained 
in Christianity, not sensibly and transiently, but spiritually and in a high- 
er degree of perfection, we shall see that the unity of his subject natur- 
ally led him to the style of a treatise-or discourse. 

If we look at the general contents of the Epistle, we shall see that 
they demanded an elevated tone. ‘The author, at the commencement, 


PAUL’S EPISTLES. 601 


speaks of Jesus as the express image of the Deity, of his exaltation 
above the angels and the whole creation, of his dignity asthe Son and as 
the Creator pf the world. He then proceeds to speak of the founder 
of Judaism, Moses, and of the regulations instituted by him for the 
purpose of establishing a religious state; then of the high-priesthood, 
and of every thing which made the Jewish religion externally imposing, 
or worthy of regard for the internal peace it imparted. He speaks of 
the highest things with which the Jew was conversant, and points out 
for each of them something more elevated in Christianity. Paul would 
not have evinced that peculiarly sound-judgment in the selection of his 
style, which we know that he possessed, had he chosen any other man- 
ner than the rhetorical and elevated. But every one knows that this 
cannot be attained without elegant and lofty diction. 

What objection can be made, moreover, against the supposition that 
Luke had something to do with the phraseology? He was, at this pe- 
riod, in such close, intimacy with the apostle, that his cooperation in 
perfecting the composition in point of elegance is not at all improbable. 
Although the Epistle to the Philippians, which: immediately preceded 
that to the Hebrews, avoids in a measure certain harsh, Hebraistic 
modes of construction, is more elegant in respect to the arrangement 
of clauses, more easy in the transitions it contains, and more thoroughly 
Greek in its manner and movement, than previous Epistles, yet the ad- 
vance to the elegance of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to me to be 
great for the period of time between them. The ancients thought they 
observed in the Epistle a resemblance to the style of Luke. This, 
with certain expressions and phrases, which are not natural to Paul, and 
occur, out of this Epistle, only in the writings of Luke, and particularly 
the Acts of the Apostles,' may be considered as confirming a supposi- 
tion, which is in itself highly probable from the relations of intimacy 
which subsisted between the twomen. It also reconciles all difficulties 
without any strained expedients, and brings that which, in particular, 
and indeed alone, makes against Paul, into harmony with the pre- 
ponderating, and, indeed, imperious reasons for ascribing the production 
to Paul. 


) § 150. 


There is nothing at all, then, against Paul; on the contrary, every 
thing is in his favor, and proves the Epistle to be his. Its connexion 
with the circumstances of his life was as follows. 

He returned to Palestine from his travels, at a time when Christianity 


in that country had reason to apprehend a dangerous crisis, when it was 
almost impossible to stay the apostasy of the Jews (Acts 21: 20, 21). 


Fame had represented him as a determined innovator, and an opponent 
of Moses, and had given rise to general ill-will towards him, to which 

. . . 5 . . . Ἀ 
he was ἃ victim. He was seized in a tumult which arose against him, 


carried to Caesarea, where he remained till he was transferred to Bong 


as he had demanded, to receive his sentence (Acts 22: 23: seq.). 
Under such sad prospects in regard to the duration of Christianity in 
Palestine he departed thence, probably with the depressing idea, that 


1 Grotius, Adnot. in Epist. ad Hebreos, at the beginning. — ve ἫΝ 
76 ᾿ Li 


‘ 


= 


602 PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


there, where with blood and suffering the principles of Jesus had been 
planted and maintained, and a numerous church had been gathered, 
Christianity would soon cease toexist. Such was the consolation which 
he carried with him to Rome, and it was almost an accurate view into 
futurity. : 

His fate eventually took a favorable turn. He was already certain of 
his acquittal, his liberation from prison was not far off, and the accusa- 
tion of desecrating the temple, the punishment of which was death (Jos. 
Bell. Jud. L. VI. c. 2. n. 4), had been quashed. ‘The consequence was, 
that he was able again to address, in the capacity of teacher, those who 
might have despised him on account of the reproach of his guilt. He re- 
sumed his former labors, and endeavored to oppose the evil which had 
long caused him sorrow, to confirm the wavering in Palestine, to en- 
courage those who continued faithful, and, when possible, to restore those 
who had relapsed. 

It was an extremely difficult task, which he had undertaken. But 
just acquitted, he might occasion new accusations against himself, if 
with boldness and openness, as was his custom, he maintained the inu- 
tility of the ancient religion ; and besides, in the present disposition of 
his readers, it was to be feared that he might forever incur their aversion, 
and even hasten the step which he wished to prevent. But what he 
conceded to the Jews he conceded only to truth, to his principles, and 
to his conscience. Paul knew how to unite these two things; he did 
not deviate fora moment from his convictions and his former preach- 
ing, and yet granted them all they required. They wished for offerings 
and days of expiation, altars for sacrifice, and high priests, and he was 
so far from questioning the propriety of their requisitions, that he ap- 
peared ready to grant them every thing; but, on the other hand, he 
showed very happily, that they possessed the whole already in Chris- 
tianity, that Christianity was nothing else than refined Judaism, before 
which the gross Judaism of former times must completely disappear. 
And in fact it did disappear entirely, while he proved that all which 
was admirable in it was found in its highest degree of excellence and 
purity in Christianity. Thus, they could regard themselves as perfect 
Jews in the school of Christ, until they comprehended the religion of 
Jesus in spirit and in truth, and then first they saw to their astonish- 
ment that they were no longer Jews and never had been; and, since for 
every requisition of sense he had supplied a spiritual idea, they were 
worshippers in spirit, without being themselves conscious of it. 

Ι am not afraid of committing an error in placing this Epistle by the 
side of Paul’s best productions, ‘and bringing it into comparison with the 
Epistles to the Corinthians. In these, he considerately and cautiously 
wei hed his instructions, entreaties, reproofs, and, indeed, every ex- 
pression, with the intention of calining minds which had been excited by 
designing persons and exasperated by mutual injuries ; of destroying the 
influence of external disturbers of their peace ; and while the church was 
in a divided and distracted condition, ready to fall to pieces completely, or 
at least to lose a large proportion of its members, in consequence of the 
slightest imprudence on his part, of bringing them all together again 
and reconciling them,—a task which only an extremely prudent man 
could accomplish. The object of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 602 


much less difficult of attainment. To gain ascendancy over minds 
passionately attached to the religious institutions of their ancestors, as 
also over the national feeling which was deeply rooted with this prefer- 
ence and was newly awakened and called into operation by the cir- 
cumstances of the time; to deal with sensitive and excited men in so 
tender a manner as to heal without paining them; to weaken the con- 
stant influence exerted by the public festivals, which could not be at 
once annihilated, and this without depreciating them in a direct attack, 
which would have widened the breach, required uncommon qualifica- 
tions. Ifthe Epistles to the Corinthians demanded a careful reference 
to the intricate condition of that church, this Epistle required ἃ cau- 
tious regard to ancient religious prepossessions, which were not to be 
allowed to remain and still were not to be directly attacked, and the 
ability to give them a spiritual application instead of passing them by 
unnoticed. As the former express, along with the deepest earnestness, 
emotions of friendly sympathy and kindness, so this likewise exhibits a 
moving tenderness, although its tone is extremely solemn. 

As in the former the writer was guided by prudence and acquaint- 
ance with human nature, in the latter prudence and learning are prom- 
inently displayed. The chief difference between them arose from the 
circumstance, that in the case of the former Epistles the apostle employ- 
ed discreet men to cooperate with him on the spot, in order to be 
more sure of his object, while in the other case he was compelled to 
trust solely to the influence of his Epistle. ‘ 

To this production, it would seem, Paul devoted the serene hours im- 
mediately preceding his liberation. He had apparently just begun to 
expect his release, which, according to our investigations concerning 
the chronology of the Acts, took place in the’ beginning of the tenth 
year of Nero’s reign. 


CHiar TERETE 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


§ 151. 


The didactic writings of the apostles were separated into two collec- — 
tions ; the one comprising the Epistles of Paul, and bearing generally 
the title ἀπόστολος, the other containing the Epistles of the rest of the 
apostles, with the title καϑολικαὶ ἐπιστολαί, or καϑολικαὶ ἐπιστ αἱ 
τῶν ἀποστόλων. Μὰ ὧν 

This last denomination appears frequently in the works of Origen 
He, however, applied it to the Ist Epistle of Peter to the exclusior 
the second, although the latter was known to him, and to the Ist of 
John, without conferring it on the 2d and 3d.! ” 


1 


omy 


1 Τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιωάννου καϑολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς οὕτως ἔχον (Tom. XVII. in Matth. 
p. 797). Οπερ παραστήσομεν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου καϑολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς (In 


604 - THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


Dionysius of Alexandria, too, calls only the Ist of John τὴν καϑολ-- 
ἐκὴν ἐπιστολήν, and in speaking soon after of two others, he applies to 
them the word "qeomevos.! 

Origen’s phraseology, and the passage in Dionysius which seems to 
contrast with each other the καϑολικὸς and the φερόμενυς, the Catholic 
and the alleged Epistles, give color to the opinion, that the expression 
καϑολικὴ ἐπιστολὴ denoted ἃ work universally acknowledged to be 
genuine, in contradistinction from one merely alleged or doubtful. A 
very respectable scholar has drawn this inference from the expressions 
of the two fathers just mentioned, and confirmed it by the following 
language of Eusebius. ‘‘ The first Epistle of Peter,” says he, “ is uni- 
versally acknowledged ; but the Acts of Peter, his Gospel, his Sermon 
and Apocalypse, are not among the Catholic writings. "Ἔ 

Thus (it is said), Catholic and universally-received, καϑολικὸς and 
ὁμολογούμενος, and, of course, not Catholic and doubtful, were,accord- 
ing to Eusebius, equivalent. At first view it would seem that nothing 
can be more correct ; and yet this is far from being the idea which Eu- 
sebius attached to the word καϑολιχύς. 

He speaks elsewhere 1 in a directly contrary manner. ΟΥ̓́ Clement of 
Alexandria, he says: “* He used also the disputed books, viz. the Epis- 
tle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles.”° Still more plain is his 
language in an earlier passage, where he declares that the Epistle of 
James, one of the so-called Catholic Epistles, is to be regarded as spu- 
rious, as well as the pretended one of Jude, which, too, was one of the 
seven Catholic Epistles. Thus, in his mind, Catholic was so far from 
being the opposite of suspicious or disputed, that it was applied to many 
of the writings classed as disputed. 

Nor is it so certain that in Dionysius any contrast is intended between 
καϑολικός and φερόμενος. He presents doubts in regard to the Apoc- 
alypse, and, among other things, objects that in it (1: 1) John calls 
himself by name, ‘which is not once the case in his other writings. He 
proves this by a successive comparison of them. In his Gospel he con- 
ceals his name; the Catholic Epistle he opens with the words: That 
which we have heard, seen, etc. In the supposititious Epistles (he pro- 
ceeds, after some intervening sentences), he merely calls himself the 
elder.® 


Jerm. Tom. IX. p. 181 Tom. Ill. Opp. Ed. Ruei. Tom. 11. in Joann. p. 76. 
Tom. XX. in Jo. p. 323. Tom. IV. Opp. Ruei). 


1 Nesselt, Conject. ad Hist. Ep. Jacobi, appended to Knapp’s Dissert. in €. II. 
Jacobi. 


2 H.E. Ill. 3. 3 H.-E. VI. 14. 
4H. Ε΄. JIL. 23. Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιάκωβον, οὗ η πρώτη τῶν ὀνομα-- 
ἐδ καϑολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. "Ιυτέον δὲ, ὡς νοϑεύεται μὲν... ὡς 


. ΤΙούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὑτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καϑολικῶν. x. τ. 


= Euseb. H. E. L. VII. c. 25. Ὃ μὲν γὰρ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδαμοῦ τὸ 
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ προσγράφει, οὐδὲ κηρύσσει ἑαυτὸν, οὔτε διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 
οὔτε διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς . «wg δὲ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδὲ τῆς καϑολικῆς ἐπιστο- 
λῆς προέγραψεν αὐτοῖς τὸ Ὄνομα " ἄλλα ἀπερίττως ἀ ἀπ αὐτοῦ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς 
ϑείας ἀποκαλύψεως. nok TO * "Ὁ ἣν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν 
τοὶς ὀφϑαλμοῖς ἣ ἡμῶν. ᾿ῬἘπὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ἀποκαλύψει καὶ 0 gia τὸν Πέτρον 
ἐμακάρισεν, εἰπών " ἽἭῃακάριος εἶ, Σίμων βὰρ "Tova, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὔκ ἀ- 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 605 


The matter in hand here is the contrast of all John’s works with the 
Apocalypse; but the writer’s object and the connexion did not require 
that in the contrast these works should all be arranged in order one af- 
ter another. It was sufficient that every one was.cited under a certain 
title; this was all that was needful to support the idea which he ad- 
vanced. 

What he says of the Catholic and the supposititious Epistles respec- 
tively, moreover, is too far dissevered by an intervening thought. In 
exhibiting a contrast, we cannot by long parentheses remove the things 
we are comparing to a distance from each other, without destroying the 
intended effect. Thus, guided by the laws of grammar, we cannot per- 
ceive any intention of an antithesis. 

But were it even admitted that Dionysius used φερόμενος in opposition 
to καϑολικός, it would be only his own phraseology, and not that of the 
Christian church generally,and it is on this last that the question, what the 
title καϑολεκαὶ ἐπιστολαί in the biblical Codex signifies, must depend. 

Eusebius expressly terms the first Epistle of John, which was of the 
class of the universally-admitted writings of the New Testament, τὴν 
φερομένην /wavvov προτέραν, where φερομένην certainly does not 
stand opposed to καϑολικός in signification. ! The ancients have never 
applied the epithet Catholic to any other admitted and undoubted 
books of the New Testament, which they certainly must have done, 
had it signified universally-acknowledged. ‘They have never applied 
this term to the Gospel, to the Acts, or the thirteen Epistles of Paul, 
although it would have been peculiariy appropriate. 

It is, therefore, a technical expression for a class of biblical writings 
to which it belongs exclusively of all others, viz. for the class which 
comprises the didactic writings of all the apostles (Paul excepted) to- 
gether, καϑολικώς, i.e. καϑόλου καὶ συλλήβδην. 

When the Gospels and Acts had been constituted one division, and 
the works of Paul another, there yet remained the writings of various 
authors to compose a third division, to which some name must be 
given. Tt was most: appropriate to call it the common collection, xadoA- 
ἐκὸν “σύνταγμα of the apostles, and the writings which it comprised, 
κοινάς and καϑολικάς, which were often synonymous words with the 
Greeks. 

We find proof of this in the most ancient patristical phraseology. 
Clement of Alexandria calls the Epistle which was despatched by the 
council of the apostles (Acts 15: 23), the Catholic Epistle, in which all 
the apostles had a share, τὴν ἐπιστολὴν καϑολικὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων 
anavtwy.2 In this manner the seven Epistles under consideration are 
Catholic Epistles, or Epistles of all the apostles who were authors. 

Such is the meaning, too, of the passage above quoted from Eusebius, 
who appeared to contradistinguish Catholic and doubtful; for his other 
language shows that this cannot be his intention. “ The first Epistle 


πεκάλυψὲ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὃ πατήρ μου ὃ οὐράνιος, "᾿Αλλ [δῦ δὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρῃ φερομ- } 
ἕνῃ ᾿ΙἸωάννου χαὶ τρίτῃ καίτοι βραχείαις οὔσαις ἐπιστολαῖς ἸΙωάννης 0v0-= 
μαστὲὶ πρόκειται. 

1 Kuseb. Η. E. L. III. ο. 25. 

2 L. [V. Strom. ec. 15. p. 512. Heins. et Sylb. 


606 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


of Peter,” he says, “is universally acknowledged, but the Acts of Pe- 
ter, his Gospel, his Sermon and Apocalypse, are, not,of the number of 
the Catholic writings.” He thus designates the class to which these al- 
leged writings of Peter must have been referred (since the collection of 
historical and Pauline writings was closed), had they been considered 
as genuine and as belonging to the Canon—viz., in his opinion, the one 
in which were placed the writings of the apostles generally. 

In the same way, too, Origen used the expression, when he applied it 
tothe Epistle of Barnabas, yéyyanrau δὲ ἐν τῇ δαρνάβα καϑολικῇ 
ἐπιστολή. For this father is sometimes mentioned by the ancients un- 
der the title am0orodo¢ ; in this view, the Epistle belonged to the com- 
mon collection of the apostles, or among the writings of various au- 
thors. 

But (a celebrated scholar objects), as in fact only two Epistles, the Ist 
of Peter and John, were acknowledged, how can the expression xa%od- 
ἐκὸς have denoted aclass? how could two writings be regarded as a 
καϑολικὸν ouvtayua? There was such a collection, however, and, ac- 
cording to the repeated declarations of Eusebius, all the other Epistles 
were contained in the Codex of the New Testament, and, though indi- 
viduals may have doubted in regard to them, were publicly read in most 
churches. Itis onthis fact that my idea is founded (and this scholar 
himself seems to acknowledge it afterwards), and certainly it is tenable 
only on this condition.” 

In the fourth century, however, another signification supplanted this. 
Heretics were constantly increasing in number, and the principal argu- 
ment against them at this time was the long-established locus communis 
of a harmonious universal church, from which they were renegades and 
schismatics. ‘The church and doctrines thus identical throughout the 
world were called χαϑολικαί. This signification, likewise, came to be 
given to the word as designating a class of the biblical books, and by 
the Catholic Epistles were meant such as were not directed to particu- 
lar churches, but to the church universal, or a large part of it, nearly the 
same with circular letters, such as some of the Catholic Epistles, proper- 
ly so called, really were. This is Theodoret’s explanation of the word, 
and it was adopted by subsequent commentators.® 


§ 152. 


Before the fourth century, in which, for the first time an undeviating 
unanimity in all the churches in respect to the Canon was effected, 
Christian writers with perfect freedom advocated or denied the authori- 
ity of certain writings of the New Testament. Individual fathers ad- 
mitted or rejected certain books, according as their judgment dictated. 
Besides the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, this was the 


a Orig. Contra Cels. L. 1. n. 63. 
2 Pott. Epist. Cath. Fascic. 1. exhibens Epistolam Jacobi. Proleg. p. 26, 27. 
d Ed. 


3 Pott. Ep. Cath. Vol. I! Excurs. I. De voce Ep. Cath. p 178. See Schol. in 
Jac. Ep. Edit. N.T. F. Matthei. The Scholiast on the Parisian Ms. No. 705 
says: Προτέτακται ἡ Ιακώύβου ἐπιστολὴ τῶν ἄλλων... . ὅτε τῆς Πέτρου καϑο-- 
λικωτέρα, ταῖς γὰρ ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν διεσπταρμέναις ἐγράφη δώδεκα φυλαῖς. 


TPE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 607 


case, as is well known, in regard to several of the Catholic Epistles, viz. 
that of James, the 2d and 3d of John, the 2d of Peter, and that of 
Jude. 

‘They were, indeed, always circulated under the names of these au- 
thors, and by established custom were subjoined to the other biblical 
books ; but they had not universally the estimation which was conced- 
ed to the latter, because they were not, equally with them, attested by 
vouchers and indisputabie historical evidence, or because they contain- 
ed internal grounds of suspicion. 

Eusebius exhibits the prevalent opinion in regard to them in a passage 
which we have already frequently cited. It is in the 2d book and 238d 
chapter of his History: ‘* The first of the so-called Catholic Epistles, 
that of James, is likewise considered spurious; for few of the ancients 
have mentioned it. » So, too, with the Epistle of Jude, which is also one 
of the Catholic Epistles. It is well known, however, that in most 
churches these Epistles are made use of, equally with the other Scrip- 
tures.” 

Prescription and usage, therefore, in very many churches, ἐν πλείσ- 
ταῖς ἐχκλησίαις, were in their favor; but those who required other rea- 
sons than prescription and custom were not restrained by these from de- 
ciding against them. ‘lhe right of possession did not satisfy them; 
they were desirous of examining the title, and to establish this they 
required the evidence of former times and earlier fathers. If this:-was 
wanting, they took the liberty of forming their own opinion, of doubt- 
ing or rejecting, according to their own critical judgment. Many oth- 
ers were found to goncur with them. 

They felt, almost as much as we ourselves, the want of historical 
vouchers, and drew a negative argument from the silence of antiquity, 
as we do; but, as we learn from the statement of Eusebius, they had no 
positive argument from history against these writings. How, indeed, 
could they have been assigned a place among the doubtful books, if 
credible witnesses of the early times of Chistianity had flatly contradict- 
ed their pretended apostolic origin? or if others had remarked the time 
at which they became known, and the period of their first appearance, 
as being later than the times of the apostles, and had pointed out the 
place and persons where and by whom they had been put into cir- 
culation 7 

We have, consequently, nothing to apprehend in regard to them from 
this quarter. In fact their immemorial use by many Christian church- 
es speaks in their favor, the right of possession being only now and 
then disputed because it was supported by comparatively few or weak 
documents. 

Even the negative argument loses much of its force in regard to some 
of these Catholic Epistles, when we consider their character. Their 
brevity did not afford the ancients such an abundance of ideas for every 
species of composition, or such a number of arguments in behalf of 
their doctrinal and moral positions, as the Epistles to the Romans and 
Corinthians, or any other large book. And yet it was only for such 
purposes that the ancient fathers could make use of them, and thus at- 
test their existence and genuineness. For it was not till a Jater period, 
when there existed what might be called a Christian literature, that the 


οὐ, 


608 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


literary history of Christianity, its various writers, and their works be- 
gan to be subjects of investigation. ‘The most ancient writings are 
admonitions of a moral nature, apologies, or controversial works, such 
as were called for by the exigencies of thetime. It was not till long 
after, that the fathers were at leisure to turn their attention to the history 
of their religion, its fortunes, its literary productions, and the great men 
who had earned merit in its behalf. Circumstances and the necessity 
of polemical works put the public in possession of a history of the here- 
tics and their sect by Justin and Irenzus, even before the birth of He- 
gesippus, the first historian of the Christian church. Now, as no one 
entered expressly into an investigation respecting the writers of earlier 
times their works, the question which were genuine and which suspi- 
cious, or respecting their history, it wholly depended on chance wheth- 
er an ancient writing was mentioned in an author’s productions or not, 
and this chance was the less favorable to the short Epistles, in proportion 
to the smallness of their compass and contents. 

The negative argument was, moreover, usually enforced by internal 
reasons drawn from higher criticism, which was often applied at Alex- 
andria in no discreditable manner. But this cannot curtail our right to 
examine and judge for ourselves. In such investigations personal au- 
thority is of no weight with the critic. 

Higher criticism is still open to us likewise ; and I even entertain the 
hope of drawing from it manifest proofs of the genuineness of some of 
these Epistles, particularly those of James and Jude and the 2d of 
Peter. 

This is the place to present the history of the two disputed Epistles 
of John, the occasion, purpose, and contents of which have been treat- 
ed of already. 


§ 153. 


\ 


THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. 


In behalf of these I must appeal first to the long®established right of 
admission into the Codex of the New Testament, which they possessed 
in many churches. This isa proper preface to the testimonies in their 
favor, which we shall divide into the Greek, the eastern, and the western. 

In the latter half of the second century, Clement of Alexandria al- 
ludes to several Epistles of John, but so indefinitely, that we cannot tell 
how many he had in mind. He refers to a passage in the first (1 John 
5: 16), and calls it the larger Epistle ; from which we can merely infer 
that this was not the only one with which he was acquainted, without 
being able to determine whether he knew of only one or of two which 
were smaller. 

Origen, his successor in the ministry, is more express on this point. 
“ John left behind him,” he says, “an Epistle of a very few stichot ; 
perhaps, also, a second and third; though some do not consider these 


1 Φαίνεται δὲ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν τῇ μείζονι ἐπιστολῇ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐκδὲ-- 
’ 2 t 2 ᾿ 
δάσκον ἐν τούτοις " ᾿Εάν τις ἵδη τὸν ἀδελφὸν, x. τ. A. (1. IL. Strom. e. 15). 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 609 


genuine. Both these together, however, contain only an hundred 
stichoi.’”! 

Dionysius is the third father of the Alexandrian school who gives us 
information in regard to the Epistles of John. We have before seen 
that he was acquainted with all of them, but calls the two last φερομε- 
vat, writings alleged to be genuine. He was the first who attributed the 
Apocalypse to another John, a Presbyter of Ephesus, with whom Papias 
was intimately acquainted. Others extended this supposition still fur- 
ther, and ascribed these two Epistles, likewise, to the Presbyter. 

The father of ecclesiastical history makes an allusion to this fact : 
“The second and third Epistles of John, whoever may be their author, 
the Evangelist or another man of the same name, ranks among the dis- 
puted books.””2 

The Syriac church had them in their most ancient version, in which, 
as we have shown before, they were not refused a place till a later pe- 
riod. From this version Ephrem became acquainted with them, and he 
has sometimes cited them with express mention of their author.® 

Tn the west we have a very important voucher for the 2d Epistle, 
who, on account of the place where he resided during his youth and 
the school in which he was educated, deserves especial regard as a 
witness in respect to the works of John. We mean Irenzus, who re- 
fers to the second Epistle under the writer’s name, and with a predicate 
which distinguishes him completely. “John, the disciple of our Lord,” 
ὦ τοῦ κυρίου μαϑητής. This is the mode in which he invariably de- 
signates the Evangelist, in speaking of him or his works.4 

He refers to it, likewise, in another place. After giving extracts 
from the first Epistle, he continues : “And John, the disciple of Jesus, 
in the Epistle before-mentioned, commanded that they (the heretics) 
should be shunned, saying,” etc. He then repeats, word for word, the 
7th and 8th verses of the 2d Epistle.® 

Hence, unless his memory was very inaccurate, he regarded the 2d 
Epistle as an appendix to the first, as a part of the epistola predicta, 
just as we ourselves have considered it to be a supplement, composed 
and sent at the same time with the first. Ifthis was the case, the fol- 
lowing testimony takes a different aspect from that in which it appears 
at first view. 

The anonymous author of the fragment in Muratori, who is usually 


1 Comm, in Matth. L. J.apud Euseb. H. E. VI. 25, Καταλέλοιπε δὲ καὶ ἐπιστο-- 
λὴν πάνυ ὀλίγων στίχων. “Bore δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην - ἐπεὶ οὐ πώντες φασὶ 
γνησίους εἶναι ταύτας. Πλὴ Ly οὔχ εἰσε στίχων ἀμφότεραι ἑκατόν. 

2 Τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων Bhi ἡ ὀνομα: “omen δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη ᾿Ιωάννου, sire τοῦ 
εὐαγγελιοτοῦ τυγχάνουσαι; εἴτε ἑτέρου ὁμωνύμου ἐκείνῳ (H. E. III. 25). 

3 Hassencamp, “ Anmerk, tiber die letzten §§ der Einleit. von Michaelis. p. 
40—42. 

4 L.1. Adv. Her.c.16. The passage exists in both Greek and Latin. “ Jo- 
annes enim Domini discipnlus superextendit damnationem in eos, neque ave a 
nobis cis dici volens: ‘ Qui enim dicit, inquit,ave .. . ete.’ 

5 L. IIL. 16. ἡ. 8. “ Et discipulus ejus Joannes in predicta Epistola fugere eos 
precepit dicens: Multi seductores exierunt in hune mundum, qui non confiten- 
tur Jesum Christum in carne venisse. Hic est seductor et antichristus. Videte 
eos, ne perdatis, quod operati estis,’’ etc. 


77 


610 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


supposed to have been Caius the Presbyter, namestwo Epistles of John 
in his catalogue of the sacred books.! 

In the Carthaginian council under Cyprian, Aurelius, bishop of 
Chullabi, gave his opinion in the words of John 2 Ep. v. 10, expressly 
referring to the apostle of this name. 

Still, there were some in the Latin church, who were inclined to at- 
tribute the two lesser Epistles to that John, who had been supposed by 
Dionysius to be the author of the Apocalypse, like those before men- 
tioned among the Greeks, from whom this idea was borrowed.? 

If, now, we sum up our authentic arguments for the genuineness of 
these two Epistles, we shall find that there are far more numerous and 
weighty authorities in favor of the 2d than of the 984, That of Ireneus 
seems even decisive of the genuineness of the former, while no clear 
mention is made of the latter before the third century, to which it was 
indeed transmitted under the name of John, yet not accompanied with 
such evidence as was universally satisfactory.* 


§ 154. 


Both, however, contain strong internal evidence that they were writ- 
ten by the apostle. We have already seen how harmoniously they rank 
with the other works of John, how perfectly they suit his fortunes and 
personal condition, and how accurately the unobtrusive and unlabored 
circumstantiality of the few lines which they comprise applies to him 
throughout. Nought here is detached, nothing is without connexion 
and isolated, or, at all events, contradictory, as is the case with fictitious 
writings. Nothing is incompatible with the intimations of antiquity, 
and nothing said generally, indefinitely, without any particular refer- 


ence, as happens in the case of writers who assume the person of an- ἡ 


other, without being able to transfer themselves in imagination into his 
condition and circumstances. ‘The contrary of all this is true, and 
there appears throughout the most beautifu} consistency in point of fact 
with a remarkable situation in the apostle’s life. 

We find, too, predominating in them, the same simple, unaffected 
language, which we meet with in the Ist Epistle. ‘The character, also, 


1 “ Epistole sane Juda et superscripti Joannis due in Catholica habentur’” 
(Murat. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Atv. T. III. p. 854.). 

2 Opp. Cypr. Edit. juxta Baluz. Venet. p. 711. “ Item -alius Aurelius a Chul- 
labi dixit : Joannes apostolus in EpistolA sud posuit dicens: Si quis ad vos venit, 
et doctrinam Christi non habet, nolite eum.admittere in domum vestram, et ave 
illi ne dixeritis, quienim” .. . etc. 

3 Hieronym. in Catal. V. Joannes. 

4 The disputed verse 1 John 5: 7 is too inconsiderable a part of the New Tes- 
tament to merit a prolix discussion in an Introduction. Its examination belongs 
to a critical edition of the New Testament, which is responsible for every varia- 
tion in the text. The latest defence of it is by W. F. Hetzel, in the ‘ Schrift- 
forscher,” If. Bd. p. 2. Horstig (in Henke’s “ Magazin far Religionsphilosophie 
and Exegese,’” If Bd. p.1), has presented some counter-arguments. So, par- 
ticularly, Griesbach, in his ““ Bemerkungen Uber Hetzels Vertheidigung der 
Echtheit der Stelle, 1 John 5: 7." Giessen 1794. Griesbach appeared to me to 
have exhausted the subject ; but a short time since this question came under ex- 
amination anew in England. AsIam but generally acquainted with these dis- 
cussions, it is not proper for me to express any opinion of them. 


a ten 


a 2. 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 611 


is the same ; a benevolent heart, alive to all the finer feelings, yet zeal- 
ous, and evincing a severity and hostile vehemence against those who 
fomented disturbances, hardly to be expected from the preacher of love ; 
who, however, once wished to call down fire from heaven, when his 
friend and master was ill-treated. 

This indignation kept pace, in its increase, with the attempts of the 
deceivers, their arrogance and mischief. His first and second Epistles 
warn against them, their doctrines, and intercourse with them, earnest- 
ly, indeed, but not vehemently; he advises the deaconess, or whoev- 
er the benevolent lady was that freely practised Christian hospitality, 
not to receive them, and to withhold the salutation with which a believ- 
er was welcomed and entertained as a ovyxotvwyos. But the third is 
more vehement, because the matter had come to an open rupture, to a 
manifestation of contempt for the apostle and his messengers. He 
threatens that he will remember their evil deeds, which he describes with 
feeling, and evidently with a heart wounded by personality. Every 
thing is as it must have happened from the state of things, the grada- 
tion of offences, and their closer and closer personal bearing upon the 
author. Yet we do not see that violent anger, which attacks its adver- 
sary with bold energy, or bitter and passionate eloquence; nor the res- 
olute and stern severity of Paul, which draws the character of its ene- 
mies in accurate outline, and rebukes them in exuberant language. We 
see the indignation of a sensitive and excited mind, which is rather 
inclined to pour fourth complaints than to make accusations and sustain 
them with energy, but which, nevertheless, has too much vigor to be con 
tent with a quiet and patient concealment of its feelings within itself. 

It must indeed be admitted, that there are not very many of the an- 
cients who mention the 2d Epistle, and few who mention the 3d; but 
the 2d is extremely short, and had not the expression, ave ne dizeris, 
rather striking than really violent, been so well suited to the purpose 
of controversy, we should have had yet fewer testimonies in its favor. 
The 2d, however, has this additional peculiarity, that its object is not 
the explanation or inculcation of certain doctrines or principles of mor- 
al conduct, and thus it is not a writing for general Christian instruction, 
but rather relates to the private affairs of the apostle. It did not, there- 
fore, afford the ancients any aid in instruction or controversy, and this 
has necessarily caused a dearth of evidence for it in their works. 


§ 155. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


In what country was this Epistle written? The natural objects 
which encompassed the writer, the allusions to climate which appear in 
the Epistle, must guide us in answering this question. ‘The descriptive 
portions of it, the sensuous images by means of which he presents his. 
ideas, exhibit to us the landscape and the appearances of nature under 
the influence of which he thought, and from which his fancy acquired 
her materials. Communication and description are not like invention, 
but proceed from materials already at hand ; and frequently, while the 


612 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


author is not himself clearly sensible of it, and perhaps contrary to his 
intention, they betray the scenes and objects with which he is most fa- 
miliar, and which he regarded as most popular and forcible for the pur- 
pose of exhibiting his ideas to others or exciting in them his own feel- 
ings. In this way our author clearly discloses the country in which he 
lived, without intending to do it, though without wishing to conceal it. 

His native land was situated not far from the sea (James 1: 6. 3: 4), 
and was blessed with valuable productions, such as figs, oil, and wine 
(3: 12). These features, however, are rather general, and leave us the 
choice of several countries of the old world. Thus (e. g.) Sophocles 
(Cid. Colon. 16) describes the province of Attica: 


Xwoos 0 060 ἱερὸς, ὡς σάφ᾽ εἰχάσαι, βούων 
Aagyns, ἐλαίας, ἀμπέλου... ... 


Springs of saline and bitter water were familiar to the author (3: LI, 
12). This is a somewhat more definite circumstance. It does not suit 
so many countries, applying in particular to Palestine, where they were 
very frequent, as is observed by Josephus in many places, and also by 
all those travellers who have remarked on the physical condition of the 
country. 

The land, moreover, was very much exposed to drought, and there 
was frequently reason to fear a scarcity of productions for want of rain 
(5: 17, 18); and, in particular, sudden devastations of the vegetable 
kingdom were occasioned by the ἄνεμος καύσων, οἵ DP (1: 11). We 
have sufficient knowledge respecting this wind, and the ΕΑΝ to which 
it belongs. ‘The name under which it appears here was current not 
only in western Asia generally, but particularly in Palestine. Another 
phenomenon which presented itself to the author’s notice determines 
in favor of the same residence ; we mean the early and latter rains, 
which took place respectively in seed time and in March, and on which 
the fruitfulness of the season depended. He calls them in technical 
language, 7719 and wWipda or πρωΐμος καὶ ὄψιμος (5: 7), as they. 
were termed in Palestine: 

From this country, therefore, he wrote to all the Jews dispersed in 
foreign countries and states, to ‘the twelve tribes which were scattered 
abroad, ἕν τῇ διασπορᾷ (1: 1). 


§ 156. 


The Jewish people scattered abroad through the whole world were 
separated into three principal divisions, viz. the residents in the mother 
country and the Holy City, which was the central point of union, and 
two διασποραί, the διασπορὰ ᾿“΄σίας, with its capital, Babylon (1 Pet. 1: 
1), and the 'διασπορὰ “βλλήνων (John 7: 35), which seems to have re- 
garded Alexandria as its capital, on account of the language spoken 
by it. 

It was from the mother country and the religious authorities in the 
Holy City that injunctions and arrangements relative to religion proceed- 
ed; e.g. in regard to the intercalation on which the time of Easter, 
Pentecost, and other festivals depended. From Jerusalem the ordi- 
nances were despatched to the dcaonove of Babylon, to that of Media, 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 613 


and that of Greece.! The Median captivity was that of the ten tribes, 
and properly disconnected from the other tribes ;? and hence the injunc- 
tions from Jerusalem may have concerned only such individuals of the 
kingdom of Judah as were scattered about in this country; and these 
were probably under the immediate direction of the religious authorities 
in Babylon. 

The Babylonish Jews had a chief, who was called mi>am wN> or 
anata De, Prince of the exiles. Among the Alexandrians this officer 
bore the name ᾿ραβαρχης, or ᾿Δλαβάρχης, about which much has 
been written.® 

The other Jewish authorities in foreign countries derived their official 
power from the chiefof the διασπορά δ, 

On this system, by which was effected the maintenance of a reli- 
gious connexion through the whole nation, each chief, it is seen, had a 
separate sphere of command. General injunctions and commissions 
however, could go forth only from Jerusalem, the centre of religious au- 
thority. 

Of this general nature is the Epistle of James, which is directed to 
all the tribes, wherever dispersed ; it must, therefore, have been written 
from the Holy City by the head of the Christian Jews at Jerusalem. 


§ 157 


What induced the writer to this step? what occasion or necessity 
called upon him to take it? Inthis Epistle the apostle Paul is (if I 
may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted 
so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some 
of his doctrines and positions. All that Paul has taught respecting 
faith, its efficacy in justification, and the inutility of works, is here di- 
rectly contravened. It is not impossible that these two writers have 
crossed each other’s paths and taken positions on this subject in opposi- 
tion to one another, by mere accident, neither knowing of the other or 
being actuated by any intention of controversy. 

Is nothing beyond accident, then, apparent here? Or is the contra- 
riety so particular, that it cannot be ascribed to the operation of chance ? 

It is in the Epistles to the Romans and Hebrews‘that Paul has most 
fully expressed his opinion on this subject; and in the Epistle under 
consideration there appears such a special reference to these two Epis- 
tles, as cannot have been caused by accident. Many thoughts, even in 
the very same costume, the same phraseology and figurative turn, are 
borrowed from the Epistle to the Romans. At the commencement 
ih says (1: 3); Τινώσχοντες, ore τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως 


Ζ ‘Gemar. Hierosol.. on Sanhedrim in “the Mischnah Cap. 1. Constit. Qda, 
guest amits con “69 Nets esa ἘΞΞῚ amits con. Comp. Gemar. Babyl. 
on the same passage in the Mischnah. 

2 Liber Siphra, on Levit. 26. 38. Parasch. EX *rapina c. VIII. sec. 1. ste 
soma abse Posen τοῦ». 

3 Joseph. Ant. L. XVIII. ¢. 8. L. XX. c.5.n. 2. ¢. 7. ἡ. 3. Cicero, Ep. ad At- 
tic, L. If. Ep. 17. Juvenal, Sat. I. 130. 

4 Gemar. Baby]. in Tract. Sanhedr. c. 1. § 1. ἘΠΊ biped dsew ἜΝ 45 
semeSs eos mse. 


614 THE CAVHOLIC EPISTLES. 


κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν. This idea is likewise expressed by Paul : 

Lidores, Ore ἡ ϑλίψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἢ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δοκιμήν 
(Rom. 5: 3). The only difference is in the words γινώσκοντες and 
εἰδότες, both of which are participles, and, in the change of δοκιμήν 
for doxiucov, James describes the propensity to evil under the figure 
of a war occasioned by the lusts in our members (4: 1): "Ex τῶν ἡ- 
δονῶν ὑμῶν, τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσεν ὑμῶν. The same 
thought and image are found in Rom. 7: 23. Νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου 
ἀνειστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νούς μου. The clausein James 4: 4, 
‘Ow ἡ φιλία του κόσμου ἔχϑρα τοῦ ὕεοῦ, is of the same character as : 

Are τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχϑρα εἰς θεὸν (Rom. 8: 7). Presump- 
tuous judgment respecting others is reproved by both with the same 
rhetorical figure and the. same _ Phraseology : σὺ τίς εἶ, ὃς κρίνεις τὸν 
ἕτερον (James 4: 12); σὺ τίς εἰ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην (Rom. 14: 
4), and there occurs in each ἃ similar additional clause : εἷς γὰρ - . - 
ὃ δυνάμενος σώσαι--δυνατὸς yao ἐστιν ὁ ϑεος στῆσαι. 

Intentional opposition is still more evident in the mode of discussing 
the question concerning faith and works. Paul defends the preémi- 
nence of faith from the. example of Abraham (Rom. 4: 1. Heb. 11, 8); 
while James maintains from the same example the superiority of works 
(James 2: 21). Paul cites in favor of his position the justification of the 
harlot Rahab (Heb. 11: 31); James, however, argues the contrary 
from her example (2: 25). 

Not only, therefore, are their opinions opposite, but James contro- 
verts particular arguments presented by Paul. It is not surprising that 
both sought in the life of Abraham support for entirely different posi- 
tions, since the father of the whole Jewish nation and the earliest de- 
positary of the promises was an illustrious example of the divine provi- 
dence, to which the most dissimilar writers might easily have recourse 
without mutual controversy or mutual concert; but the fact that both 
seek in a person so inconsiderable and so little praiseworthy as the harlot 
Rahab, an example and an argument in support of their opposite opin- 
ions, cannot be explained by saying that the preéminence and extreme 
interest belonging to the person might have attracted the attention of 
both, as has been remarked by an estimable scholar.' 

But further, there is this peculiarity in respect to the example of 
Abraham, that each draws his argument for his position from the same 
event in Abraham’s life and the same passage in the O. T.; and that in 
doing this both have used almost exactly the same phraseology: Rom. 
4:1, 2. Ti ἐροῦμεν ᾿ἡβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν ἑὐρηκέναι weiss él 
γὰρ ᾿Ἰβραὰμι ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώϑη ; James 2: 21. ᾿“βραὸὺμ o πατὴ 
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώϑη. They then appeal alike to the words of 
Gen. 15: 6. “#nlotevoe " ABoucu τῷ ϑεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσϑη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαι- 
οσύνην (James 2: 23. Rom. 4: 3), Paul cites them thus : τί ἡ γραφὴ 
λέγει; James on the other hand: χαὶ ἐπληρώϑη ἡ γραφή ἡ λέγουσα. 

As to the example of Rahab, too, by which, in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews (11: 31), Paul sustains the importance of faith, the brief man- 
ner in which it is treated by both writers exhibits a similarity more 
than accidental. The former designates Rahab by the epithet 7 πόρ- 


1 Storr, “ Dissert. de Ep. Cath. occasione et consilio.”” Tubing. 1789. ὃ 5. 


ee, oe 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 615 


νὴ ; 80, too, the latter, “ῬΡαὰβ ἡ πόρνη (James 2: 25). Paul says, δεξα- 
ἀμένη τοὺς κατασχόπους, and James uses the same word in the same 
participial form: ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους. 

The contrariety, therefore, is not confined tothe main topic, but ex- 
tends to the particular arguments and the verbal presentation of them. 
Were it possible that they should by accident contravene each oth- 
er thus in regard to the main topic, they could not accidentally coin- 
cide in their arguments in favor of their opposite opinions; for contra- 
dictory positions do not suggest the same arguments. It cannot, more- 
over, be by chance that they resemble each other so much in their 
modes of presenting their arguments. 

The Epistle was therefore written of set purpose against Paul, against 
the doctrine that faith procures man justification and the divine favor. 
The first of the writings in which Paul advocates faith so warmly 
was intended primarily for the Jewish members of the church at Rome. 
We may be sure, however, that acquaintance with it was not long con- 
fined within this compass. The constant influx and efflux of foreign- 
ers into and from the metropolis of the world ; the sympathy which oc- 
currences relative to Christianity excited among its adherents; the in- 
terest that must have been felt by Jewish and Gentile converts in this 
Epistle, which stated such bold truths and maintained such peculiar po- 
sitions—all together could not fail to extend this Epistle rapidly from 
the capitol of the kingdom throughout the rest of the world. 

This commendation of faith in depreciation of works was suscepti- 
ble in that day of all those misconstructions which afterwards arose 
from it and have been so zealously maintained among us; and, when 
Christianity was forming and establishing itself, it might give to its sys- 
tem a tendency that would frustrate the purposes which it was meant to 
subserve. The Epistle to the Romans had had sufficient time (four 
years) to be read and misunderstood, and to bring into vogue undesira- 
ble notions, when that to the Hebrews appeared, advocating in full the 
same opinions. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews was written to Palestine, i. e. tothe very 
country in which the author of the alleged Epistle of James was 
brought up and educated, and where he still lived. He might then 
easily perceive the impressions which it made, the erroneous senti- 
ments to which it gave rise, and the injury which practical, active 
Christianity, the religion of works, must experience from it. We can, 
therefore, easily comprehend why he stepped forward to give his breth- 
ren a written warning not to be misled and to keep steadfastly before 
their eyes the principles of Christian conduct. 


§ 158. 


Who, now, was its author? He calls himself James; but the Bible 
mentions two or three of that name, qualified by their rank and calling 
to instruct mankind, and endued with authority for that purpose. 

There was a James, the son of Zebedee (Matth. 4:21. Mark 3: 17. 
Luke 6: 14. Acts 1: 13). He died, however, as early as the time of 
the elder Agrippa, when Paul had just commenced his career (Acts 12: 
2seq.). He, therefore, cannot have been the author. 

Besides him, there was a James the son of Alpheus (Matth. 10: 3. 


616 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


27: 56. Mark 3:18. 15: 40. Luke 6: 15. Acts 1: 13). There is a James 
mentioned in Matth. 13: 55. Mark 6: 3. Galat. 1: 19, and called a broth- 
er of our Lord. 

Many distinguish between the brother of our Lord and James the 
son of Alpheus, the apostle! In order to determine who was the au- 
thor of this Epistle, which it is our duty to attempt doing, we must in- 
form ourselves concerning all the persons of the name of James, who 
are represented in the bible to have been endued with authority as 
teachers. 

James the brother of our Lord, and James the son of Alpheus, in my 
opinion, are the same. ‘The following are my reasons. 

The brethren of our Lord were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas 
(Matth. 13:55). Inthe catalogues given of the apostles we find, along 
with James, the son of Zebedee, three of these same naines, viz. James, 
Simon, and Judas (Luke 6: 15. Acts 1: 18. Matth. 10: 3). 

If we look at Mark we find the same names presented in a manner 
which corroborates our opinion. Matthew mentions the apostles in the 
following order, James, Judas, Simon (10: 3, 4), and the brethren of Je- 
sus in a different one, James, Simon, Judas (13: 55). Mark, not satis- 
fied with this disposition of them, made an alteration, and arranged the 
brethren of Jesus precisely as the apostles of this name succeeded each 
other, viz. James, Judas, Simon (Mark 3: 18. 6:3), as if he was de- 
sirous of showing, not only the sameness of the names, but a real identity. 

The name of the father of the three apostles, and that of the father 
of our Lord’s brethren are so similar as to confer additional probability 
on our supposition. ,T'he apostles were the sons of Alpheus, and the 
brethren of our Lord the sons of Cleopas. 

The Mary who is called by Matthew (27: 56), the mother of Jesus’ 
brethren, is called by John in the parallel passage, Mary the wife of 
Cleophas (19: 25). For there was no other Mary, with the exception of 
Mary Magdalene, present at the passion and death of our Lord. Mat- 
thew excludes every other by speaking of Mary Magdalene and the 
other Mary (27: 61. 28:1). Maola ἡ Maydahnvy,, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Meo- 
gia. John, then, must have meant by Mary, the wife of Cleophas, the 
mother of Jesus’ brethren, and Mary the wife of Alpheus and Mary the 
wife of Cleophas are one and the same. 


"bn would be written in the Galilean dialect-laS20— χλωπᾶ, and 
with the Greek form would become “digaios, as 4yyaios from 227." 


1 The dispute in regard to these persons named James has been handed down 
from the earliest times. The opinion and arguments of those who suppose twe 
besides Jaines the son of Zebedee, viz. James the less and the brother of our 
Lord, are presented in detail by Pott (Epist. Cath. Perp. Annot. Illust. Vol. 1. 
Prol. p. 1—23) ; and the contrary opinion in the academic work ‘“‘ De Jacobo 
Epistole eidem adscripte auctore Scripsit Gabler. Altdorf. 1787. Comp. Eich- 
horn’s “ Allg. Bibl. der bibl. Litt.’ I. Bd. VI. St. p. 1011 seq. The work enti- 
tled ‘‘ Briefe zweener Briider Jesuin unserm Kanon. Lemgo, 1775,” distinguish- 
es two persons, but considers James the brother of Jesus as own brother to the 
other. On the whole, I concur with the opinion of Dr. Gabler. Much on this 
pi may be found in Michaelis’ Ein]. in das N. T. 4th ed. IH. Th. ὃ 238— 

41. 

2 The Cleopas mentioned in Luke 24: 18, has nothing to do with this sub- 

ject. That name, as Dr. Gabler has rightly remarked, is a Greek one from KAso- 


a 


THE CATHOLIG EPISTLES. 617 


Thus, what we have inferred from a comparison of the Evangelists in 
regard to the fathers and mothers of these three men is here confirmed 
by the analogy of language; and the sons of Cleophas and the sons of 
Alpheus are in fact the same persons. 

Against this identity there is but a single objection of any moment; 
and this is that the brethren of Jesus did not believe on him, ovdé yao 
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτὸν, as we are told by John (7: 5). 
How could these unbelievers have been received among the apostles ? 

But, besides that with John faith in Jesus signifies a great deal, no 
less than the acknowledgment of him as the Messiah, the Son of God, 
in regard to which they might have hesitated without refusing belief in 
his doctrines or in his qualifications as a prophet—besides this, James, 
Simon, and Judas, are really last in the list of the apostles, Judas Iscar- 
iot alone being placed after them. There is, then, additional reason 
for supposing the three apostles to have been the same with the 
three brethren of Jesus of the same name, who were so slow of belief. 

If we follow the persons of the name of James still further, during 
the time when after the death of our Lord they appear engaged in the 
duties to which they were called, we shall find the biblical history to 
import that there was but one James besides the son of Zebedee who 
was beheaded. 

Not long after the latter was beheaded (Acts 12: 2), when Peter had 
been liberated from prison, where a similar or more cruel fate awaited 
him, and had escaped from Jerusalem in the night, he directed that the 
news should be carried to James and the other brethren (Acts 12: 17). 
He speaks as though there was now but one James; using no epithet 
or sign of distinction, precisely as if there could be no confounding of 
persons. We know from another narrative that this James was the 
brother of our Lord (Gal. 1: 19). 

When Paul and Barnabas proposed the question concerning the ob- 
servance of the law in the council at Jerusalem, the rest of the coun- 
cil being silent, James answered, saying—and the matter was decided 
(Acts 15: 13). The representation of this occurrence, too, is precisely 
as if there was but one of this name, and the person could not possibly 
be mistaken. 

When Paul subsequently appeared again at Jerusalem (Acts 21: 18), 
the day after his arrival he introduced his companions into the house of 
James, in which all the elders were assembled. Among those thus in- 
troduced was the historian himself (eo7jee ὁ Παῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν πρὸς 
Ἰάκωβον), who here, as in every other case in the Acts, speaks as if 
there was but one James possessed of ministerial authority, and he, 
therefore, needed no special mark of distinction. 

Paul, too, proceeds in a similar way, when relating in the Epistle to 
the Galatians some of the circumstances of his life after his conversion. 

When he came to Jerusalem the first time after his conversion, he 
abode some days with Peter; ‘‘ but other of the apostles,” he contin- 


argos, like Avriad: from ᾿Αντίπατρος, “Agroxpds from “Agmoxedrns. His 
wife was not present at the occurrence. He says only in general, γυναῖκες tuvés ~ 
(v. 22), without affirming any closer participation in the scene by himself or his 
family. 

78 


618 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


ues, “‘saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother” (1: 19).} In this 
case he added a distinctive designation to James’ name, because the 
other James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was still living 
at the time of which he spoke (Comp. Acts, § 78), and hence a mis- 
take would have been possible without it. 

The latter died soon after, and henceforward no allusion is made to 
more than one James in Paul’s narrative. Peter escaped from the Ho- 
ly City, and went, it seems, to Antioch. ‘There he ate with the Gen- 
tiles, till certain came from James, πρὸ tov yao ἐλϑεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ 
“Ἰακώβου (Gal. 2: 12). 

On occasion of the second mission, James (the name is used without 
any mark of distinction) was a prominent pillar of the Christian cause 
in Jerusalem, as well as Peter and John (Gal. 2:9), he being repre- 
sented, however, as the first of the three. 

Thus, as at the commencement of Paul’s narrative we found this 
same James designated by Paul as the brother of our Lord, and have 
observed that he continued to remain constantly at Jerusalem, so now 
we find him there after a considerable lapse of time. We find the same 
person, moreover, termed in other historical accounts the brother of 
our Lord. Hegesippus tells us concerning this James, the brother of 
our Lord, that he was the head of the church at Jerusalem, and had 
become generally known under the surname of the Just.2 Clement, 
in the 6th book of his Hypotyposes, confirms both these facts ; and, ac- 
cording to Jerome, he was head of the church in the Holy City for 
about thirty years.° 


> 


§ 159. 


Supposing, however, that there was more than one James, which of 
them was the author of the Epistle? It must have been the James 
who was head of the church at Jerusalem, even if we assume another 
beside him wholly unknown to fame. He alone could expect that his 
name would procure attention and his authority be respected wherever 
Jews were to be found over the whole earth. 


1 Ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστύλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ιάκωβον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. 
This passage ranks the brother of our Lord among the apostles; and hence 
there remains no reason for distinguishing between the apostle and the brother 
of our Lord of the same name. But those who take delight in supposing a great 
many persons of the name of James, assert contrariwise the possibility of another 
interpretation of it. It may, they think, be understood as meaning: I saw no 
other apostle, but only James the brother of our Lord. But were this the mean- 
ing, it would be very badly expressed ; and ἀλλὰ μόνον should have been used in- 
stead of εἰ μη), as it is frequently in Paul's writings. According to Paul's usus 
loguendi, εἰ μὴ, if it follows a general clause, denotes an excention. 1 Cor. 2: 11. 
Οὐδείς οἶδεν --εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 1 Cor. 8: 4. “Ὅτι οὐδεὶς ϑεὸς ἕτερος, εἰ 
μὴ εἷς. 2 Cor. 12: 5. “Ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ καυχήσομαι--εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσϑενίαις μου. 
Consequently the passage under consideration signifies: I saw no other of the 
apostles but James the brother of our Lord. The first clause is not to be taken 
as exclusive, the latter denoting an exception. 


2 Euseb. H. E. 11. 23. 
3 Euseb. H. E. II. 1. Hieronym. Catal. voc. Jacobus. 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 619 

He only, moreover, by virtue of the station which he held as head of 
the church in the Holy City itself, possessed an established right to ad- 
dress all the Jewish Christians in the world as an @cumenical teacher. 
He enjoyed among the Christian Jews that prerogative which was al- 
ways accorded to the religious head of the Jews at Jerusalem, of exer- 
Cising superintendence over all the Jews scattered abroad, and supreme 
religious authority generally; and this could be assumed by no other 
teacher. The chief of the Asiatic dispersion might watch over his 
provinces, over the διασπορὰ “σίας, the chief of the A fricano-Europe- 
an dispersion over the διασπορὰ τῶν ᾿δλλήνων, the Jews who spoke 
Greek ; but neither of them could presume to send forth epistles and 
injunctions to all the twelve tribes, to the Jews asa people. It was on- 
ly from the perpetual centre of union for all the tribes and all their in- 
dividual members, that commands and instructions could be dispensed 
to all. 

This established organization of Judaism would have made it diffi- 
cult to influence the minds of even the Jewish Christians generally, 
had not the person who undertook to do it corresponded with their ha- 
bitual ideas of fitness, had he not been able to command respect and 
general obedience as head over the Christians in Jerusalem. Of all 
the persons named James, however, only the brother of our Lord, who 
was at Jerusalem, could in this view undertake the task with propriety 
and success. 

If the apostle was a different person from the brother of our Lord, 
he cannot have been the author. For the author does not call himself 
ἀπόστολος, as he must in that case have done, in order to certify his 
authority as ateacher ; for no one inferior to an apostle could have pre- 
sumed to dispense decisions on religious subjects to the Jewish Chris- 
tians generally. 

He was the brother of our Lord. This was the distinguishing appel- 
lation by which one of the persons named James ranked above the apos- 
tles, and was the chief pillar of the faith at Jerusalem. He could not 
now apply this designation to himself, it is true ; for our Lord was no 
longer the brother of mortal man. Exalted over all things, he had al- 
ready entered upon the government of the world ; and ἀδελᾳὸς κυρίου 
was now the same as αδελφόϑεος or ϑεάδελφ ος, a title to which James 
had not the arrogance to make pretension. The only choice remain- 
ing, therefore, was to take the designation of servant instead of brother, 
and to call himself, as he has done—dovios ᾿Πησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


§ 160. 


Between several moral writings, composed in similar circumstances, in 
support of the same truths and the same positions, there will always be 
a striking difference, depending on the mental constitution of each au- 
thor and his peculiar cast of feeling. The same divine truth meets 
with a different reception in different minds, is looked at more in one 
light than another, and felt more or less strongly, according to their 
character, assimilates itself to the ideas already existing in each, be- 
comes intimately connected with those ideas, and naturalizes itself in 
the human understanding in different ways. 


620 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


This Epistle, considering simply its strain of thought, without refer- 
ence to its figures, phraseology, and style, has a peculiar character. It 
exhibits the forbearance, the lenity and the peculiar bent of mind, which, 
as history represents, belonged to James of Jerusalem. 

James of Jerusalem treated the Jews with particular indulgence in 
respect to the obligatory nature of the law and its ceremonies. In the 
council of the apostles, it is true, he released the Gentiles from the ob- 
servances of Judaism; but does not utter a word in contravention of 
their binding force upon the Jews. They might, if they were so in- 
clined, learn from this how much of their religion was essential to a 
Christian, and if they were not, they certainly could not be offended 
(Acts 15: 18, 22). He even indulged them in their continued adhe- 
rence to a distinction of meats (Gal. ὦ: 12, 13) and to the legal tenets 
in regard to pollution. He thus showed indirectly that the law might 
be dispensed with, and yet suffered it to be observed for a while lon- 
ger, because many could not or would not dispense with it. 

In a writing like this, insisting upon practical Christianity, upon 
the doctrines of Jesus as the highest moral law, the author must, one 
would think, have come out at once with the declaration that the pre- 
cepts of Moses were no longer the standard of human actions and the 
Jewish usages no longer to: be esteemed works of piety. But he pro- 
ceeds in a totally different manner. Te does not assail the favorite 
opinions of the Jews, but only places by their side invariably something 
better and more perfect, in the hope that the latter will of itself supplant 
the former. He, for the moment, fully adopts the ]aw of Moses as,the 
rule of human conduct (James 2: 8 and 11), and afterwards maintains 
merely that the new dispensation requires al] this in a far higher degree 
(2: 12); he leaves to the former its importance as an institution of the 
Deity (4: 11), but recommends the Christian law as the most perfect 
and exalted (1:25). The ceremonial rites of the Jews, ϑρησκεία, do 
not offend him, even though some of them are trifling; he leaves them 
as they are, and only declares that the purest piety consists in works 
of inward morality (1:26, 27). Can we not see James of Jerusalem in 
all this ? 

History! describes the brother of our Lord as a man of extraordinary 
strictness of life and principles, which strictness gained him the dis- 
tinctive title of the Just, and made him, as it were, the Cato of the dis- 
ciples of Jesus. This rigid austerity, not content with particular per- 
fections, requiring of the virtuous man the fulfilment of the whole mor- 
al law, and demanding complete virtue without acknowledging indi- 
vidual excellences, is clearly portrayed in the Epistle. ‘The author 
shows himself thronghout disinclined to relax even in respect to the 
minutest moral requisitions, or to distinguish between the important 
and the unimportant. 

According to history, James was a peculiarly ardent advocate of 
prayer,? and had an €xtremely warm belief in its benefit and efficacy. 
This trait, too, distinguishes our Epistle, for, though the Epistle is very 
far from being diffuse, prayer is nevertheless repeatedly and earnestly 
enjoined (1: 5—9. 4: 2, 3. 5: 16—19). τ 


1 Hegesipp. apud Euseb. HB, L. Ife, 23. 
2 Hegesipp. loc. cit. 


es 


» ὁ 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 621 


It is not, then, an ideal picture, sketched in general terms, indefinite, 
and without character; but it is the transcript of an individual, express- 
ing acertain cast of thought and character. It is no fiction, but the 
portrait of a human mind, exhibiting a definiteness of feature that points 
to a real existence. 

The character which it exhibits is one presented in history, that of 
James, who presided over the church at Jerusalem, and was called the 
brother of our Lord. We see, therefore, not only that the Epistle is a 
genuine work of a certain James in the first century of the Christian 
era, but to which of the several of this name (if there were several) it 
is to be attributed. 


§ 161. 


We come next in order to the testimonies of the ancients, and the ac- 
counts which sustain its genuineness and serve to elucidate its history, 

The idea concerning faith and works which was deduced from the 
writings of Paul would certainly have become the general one, if some 
distinguished teacher had not interposed; but we find it to have been 
rather the case that the opinion of James was inculcated in a form 
which reconciled it with that of Paul. Hence the influence of this 
Epistle upon the early doctrinal system is undeniable, and it derives 
from this fact a very striking proof of its genuineness and the legisla- 
tive authority of its author. j 

The doctrine of works and faith is discussed by Clement of Rome in 
his first Epistle to the church at Corinth. It is true he does not men- 
tion James by name, for the fathers of this period rarely quote the apos- 
tolic writings under the names of their authors; but the doctrine which 
he presents is clearly that of James, and indeed he exhibits striking re-_ 
semblances to him in particular positions and arguments, and in respect — 
to phraseology. 

He speaks (C. 38) of the true wisdom which is evinced by works, 
nearly in the same way as James (3: 13). Ὃ σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσϑω τὴν 
σοφίαν αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἐν λόγοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαϑοῖς. 

In the 30th Chapter, he commences precisely in the words of James 
(4:6). Ὁ yao ϑεός ὑπερηφάνοις avteraooerat, and after several claus- 
es passes to the subject of καταλαλία, as James (4: 11) does (using the 
word χαταλαλεῖν), and at the close presents James’ opinion in regard to 
justification by practical Christianity (ἔργοις δικαιουμένοι zal μὴ Aoy- 
ous). Θεὸς yao ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι 
χάριν. Αολληϑώμεν οὖν ἐκείνοις, οἷς ἡ χάρις ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ δέδο-- 
Tal. . . ἐγκρατευόμενοι, ἀπὸ παντὸς ψιϑυρισμοὺ καὶ καταλαλίας 
πόρῥω ἑαυτοὺς ποιοῦντες, ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ οὐ λόγοις. 

The example of Abraham and Rahab is treated by him, not as Paul 
treats it in his Epistle to the Hebrews, of which he often makes evident 
and literal use, but after the manner of James. He says (€. 10): 
*Apoaau, ὁ φίλος προσαγορευϑείς (he is thus called only in the Epistle 
of James), πεστὸς εὑρήϑη ἐν τῷ ὑπήκοον γενέσϑ αι τοῖς ῥήμασι ϑεοῦ 
(James 2: 23). Shortly after he says: ἐπίστευσε “βραὺὰμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ 
ἐλογίσϑη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.--:-Η6, moreover, like James (2: 21), 
argues from the sacrifice made by Abraham, that he united works with 


δ 
ty 


622 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


faith: διὰ πίστιν---πκαὶ dv ὑπακοῆς προσήνεγκεν αὐτοῦ(τὸον viov) ϑυσί- 
αν τῷ ϑεῷ. 

In like manner, he says in regard to Rahab, that she was saved be- 
cause she conjoined works with faith, because she harbored and pre- 
served the spies of Joshua : διὰ πίστεν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώϑη “Paap ἡ 
πορνη.. ες εἰσδεξαμένη αὐτοὺς ἔχρυψεν, εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον .. . καὶ 
ἐξηγαγε αὐτούς. 

Among the passages which Lardner has selected from the writings of 
Hermas as coincident with James, there are three of which we can rec- 
ognize the local source. Were there but one, the coincidence might 
more easily be ascribed to accident ; but chance is out of the question 
in a case of repeated agreement in thought and language. ** Nefan- 
dis verbis Dominum insectati, nomen ejus negaverunt, quod super nos 
erat invocatum’” (Similit. VIL. 6). (ϑλασφημοῦσι τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ 
ἐπικληϑὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (James 2:7). “Si enim resistitis illi (diabolo) fu- 
giet a vobis confusus” (Mandat. XIL 5). ‘Avriornte τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ 
φεύξεται ap ὑμῶν (James 4:7). “ Qui potest vos salvos facere et per- 
dere” (Mand. XII. 6). ‘O δυνάμενος σῶσαν καὶ ἀπολέσαι (James 
4: 12). 

In a work of Irenzus, too, a passage is quoted concerning Abraham’s 
justification, which i is found, ‘word for word as it there stands, in James, 
and nowhere else: “ Quod Abraham sine circumcisione et sine ob- 
servantiad sabbatorum credidit Deo ct reputatum est illi ad justitiam, 
et amicus Dei vocatus est” (L. Adv. Her. IV. c. 16. James 2: 23). 
As this father had not long before (L. IV. c. 8) quoted with perfect ac- 
curacy the parallel passage from Paul (Rom. 4: 3), it cannot be regard- 
ed as a peculiar reading in his Ms. of the Epistle to the Romans; and 
as, moreover, it does not appear thus anywhere in the Old Testament, 
we cannot but consider it as a quotation from the Epistle of James, al- 
though the name of the author is not mentioned. 

Early, however, as this Epistle was probably known to the Latins, it 
is not quoted expressly before the fourth century in any of the works 
of Latin fathers which are still extant. Jerome even tells us*that it 
was regarded as the work of another author, and that it was only in 
process of time, “ paullatim tempore procedente,” that it acquired esti- 
mation afd credit.! It is probable that the council of Carthage had 
some share in the more favorable reception which this Epistle hence- 
forth met with among the Latins. 

It is worthy of notice, however, that in the east, where from circum- 
stances this composition must have been best known, it was also highly 
appreciated. Syria, where better information than elsewhere must have 
existed in regard to a writing originating in Palestine, included this 
Epistle in its earliest church-version, and persisted in retaining it after 
the subsequent rejection of all the other disputed Catholic Epistles. 

Ephraem made use of it in many places, most evidently in his Greek 
works, and attributed it to James, the brother of our Lord. Other Syr- 
iac writers after him have used it like other sacred books, sometimes 
even naming the author. Their testimonies have been collected and 
arranged with industry and judgment by a deceased scholar.” 


Se - -- - Jo τὸ eee 


1 Hieronym. Catal. v. Jacobus. 
2 Ephraem, Opp. Gree. T. IIL. p. 51. “᾿Ιάκωβος δὲ ὃ τοῦ κυρίου ἀδελ-- 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 623 


Some countries of Asia Minor, like the Syriac church, acknowledg- 
ed but three Catholic Epistles, that of James, and the Ist of Peter and 
John. Whether the well-known Jambics, which attest this, were writ- 
ten by Gregory Nazianzen or Amphilochius of Iconium, the value of 
their testimony is the same.! 

The African church affords us no such favorable evidence respecting 
this Epistle as is furnished by the eastern and western. Before the 3d. 
century we find only very probable references to this writing by the 
Greek fathers, references not by any means sufficiently exact to be re- 
garded as identical passages. The most prominent of these is ἃ pas- 
sage in Clement of Alexandria : ᾿βὰν μὴ--σὺν͵ τῷ μετὰ τῆς ἐν τούτοις 
τελειώσεως καὶ τῷ τὸν πλησίον ἀγαπᾷν, χαὶ εὐεργετεῖν δύνασϑαν οὐκ 
ἔσεσϑε βασιλικοί." Comp. James 2:8. Origen is the first who men- 
tions this Epistle clearly and expressly, and from him we learn, indeed, 
that it was extensively known in the third century and long before, un- 
der the name of James; but that opinions were various in ‘regard to its 
authority.2 After him "Dionysius of Alexandria mentions the Epistle 
and refers to James 1: 13, and 4: 1.4 

Eusebius represents the opinions of his predecessors in much the 
same manner as Origen. He says that the Epistle is a disputed book, 
because the ancients have rarely referred to it. He however adds that 
many esteem it genuine.° 

This Jatter opinion finally preponderated, and after the fourth centu- 
ry it was used by most of the Greek fathers like the other biblical books, 
out of regard to the established usage of the church. 


§ 162. 


We may easily conceive that the striking contrast between the doc- 
trines of this Epistle and the doctrines of Paul must have hindered the 
favorable reception of the former. A writer who thus disputed what 
was taught by an acknowledged apostle, an apostle whose disciples 
and admirers were scattered in great numbers throughout many coun- 
tries, the apostle, too, of the Gentiles, could not but meet with oppo- 


φὸς λέγει" Πενϑήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε x. t.4. Comp. L. 1. p. 18. Hassencamp’s 
Observations on the last §§ of Michaelis’ Introd. p. 27—31, 

1 Καϑολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τινες μὲν ἑπτά φασιν, οἵ δὲ τρεῖς μόνας χρῆναι 
δέχεσθαι, τήν ᾿Ιακώβου μίαν, μίαν δὲ Πέτρου, τὴν t ᾿Ιωάννου μίαν. Opp- 
Greg. Naz. 'T. 11. p. 195. 

2 Strom. L. VI. p. 825. Ed. Venet. 


3 Comm. in Jo. Tom. 19. ᾿Εὰν δὲ λέγηται μὲν πίστις, χωρὶς δὲ ἔργων 
τυγχάνῃ; νεκρά ἐστιν 7H τοιαί τή, ὡς ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ ᾿Ιακώβου ἀνέγνωνεν. Tom. 
21. Ov συγχωρηϑὲν ἃ ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν παραδεχομένων τὸ, Πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων 
νεχρά ἐστιν. 

4 Dionysii Alexand., cognomento ‘Magni, que supersunt. Rome 
MDCCXCVII. Typ. Congr. de prop. Ed. Simon de Magistris, Episc. Cy- 
renens. In his “ Libell. de Martyrio,” ο. 6. p. 32. ς. 7. p. 33, and “ Fragm. 
ex Schol. Gree. in Epist. Jacobi.” p. 200., 


5 Hist. Eccles. L. 1]. c. 23. L. 1Π c. 25. 


624 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


nents, even though he himself, likewise, were an apostle. That he ac- 
tually met with them, is not surprising. But it would be very ‘strange 
that any one should have invented this Epistle and then, to procure it 
authority, ascribed it to James, without taking the essential precaution 
of at least giving itsuch a tenor as would not render its success diffi- 
cult, at any rate not excite distrust and opposition at the outset. 

When a writing seemed in its entire purport to clash with previous 
apostolic doctrines, how many arguments must it have had in its favor, 
how many proofs of its genuineness, in order to acquire so much con- 
sideration in a great many churches, as to rank with the sacred books in 
the Apostolic Codex. If the contrariety to Paul was, with many church- 
es, no hindrance to such a disposal of it, the conviction must certainly 
have become strong that it was the production of a sacred writer, whom 
no one might presume to gainsay. 


§ 163. 


With what views did the apostle compose this Epistle? There is no 
doubt that it was his chief object to enforce the observance of the mor- 
al law,as the principal purpose of religion, with special reference to 
his own times and the wants and condition of those who were immedi- 
ately about him and committed to his guidance, and next, to his other 
contemporaries and their circumstances, 

If we were acquainted with the local and other circumstances of the 
time, much light would be thrown upon a great part of this Epistle, and, 
though it is usually regarded as a collection of individual sentences, and 
detached passages without continuous connexion, its different parts 
would acquire a real mutual dependence, which is now imperceptible in 
the rapid transitions of the author, and which cannot be discerned un- 
til the intermediate ideas are supplied from the circumstances of the 
time and the chasms in the connexion are thus filled up. With our 
present means this is not completely feasible ; but an imperfect picture 
of the author’s time and situation, may serve as an incitement to the 
production of a better. 

We see from the Epistle, that one of the principal troubles of the au- 
thor was the πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι, the many arrogant persons, who knew 
every thing in respect to religious matters and determined them at once 
with the utmost confidence. It ison this account that he complains 
most earnestly of a small member, the tongue, upon which he charges 
great injury to the doctrines of Christ (3: 1—10. 1: 19, 20). 

There had become prevalent, particularly among the Jewish Chris- 
tians, an opinion respecting the exceeding efficacy of faith, according 
to which man could by it become acceptable to God, without the difficult 
observance of the moral law and without virtue. 

From what source this opinion arose, it is not difficult to divine, since 
its advocates availed themselves of the arguments which Paul had used, 
in the Epistle to the Romans, to show the superfluous nature of works 
and the power of faith. They did not however intend in their tenet the 
works of Judaism, but considered the Mosaic Jaw as still the rule of 
life and conduct, the Messiah and his doctrines as necessary subjects of 
belief. Thus Christianity was made to take a subordinate rank; it 
could indeed claim assent, but obedience was due to the law. 


y ——— σ-.ῬΦ 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 625 


These and similar points respecting the law and Christianity, about 
which there was little unanimity for a long time, were never contested 
without exciting the bitterest feelings of party animosity . At Corinth 
and in the churches of Galatia this controversy was prosecuted with 
zeal and asperity; and James saw and dreaded it within his own 
charge. 

As to the external circumstances and civil condition of the Jews and 
Jewish Christians, they were very far from being desirable. ‘The prae- 
tors practised extortion under every pretext, and abused their judicial 
authority for their own emolument. Liberation from prison, security, 
and justice were to be obtained only by money, and one might even 
purchase a license to commit crime.! 

Hence, many in an abject manner courted the favor of the rich, ἀνὴρ 
χρυσοδακεὺλ 409,5 and the poor were obliged to endure all kinds of i ig- 
nominy, even in the Christian congregations, where it was least to be 
tolerated (2: 2—10). 

The public oppressions were grievous, but the evils which the author 
foresaw were yet greater (1:3, 4, 12, 13,14). The crying injustice 
practised on all sides evidently called for retributive chastisement on the 
part of God (V. 1—7). 

It does not appear from any of his expressions that the Romans were 
at hand; but the popular ferment and the inefficacy of the laws had al- 
ready reached 80 high a pitch as to occasion scenes of violence and 
ei μόχεσϑε zai πολεμεῖτε-ττᾳφονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε (4: 1, 2, 3. 
5: 6). 

Under Felix, and again under Porcius Festus, vast bands of exaspe- 
rated patriots marched through the country, violently forcing the inhabi- 
tants of unfortified places to accompany them, or, if they refused, setting 
their villages on fire and perpetrating the bloodiest deeds. They even 
appeared in the capital and at the feasts, where they mixed with the 
crowd of people, and effected many secret assassinations with conceal- 
ed weapons.® 

The public disorder and lawlessness had already become so great, 
that the writer believed the moment of retribution not far remote : xge- 
τῆς πρὸ τῶν ϑυρῶν ἑστηκως (V. 9). 

Το. escape the threatened αὐλοῦ many meditated seeking a resi- — 
dpyecii in other countries.* ae ‘relied ἜΡΟΝ their commercial capaci- 


1 Acts 24: 96. Tacit. Hist. L. V. c. 10. The following passage, it is 
true, relates to the times immediately subsequent to the death of James ; 
it is however true in part of the administration of Felix: Kai χρήμασι 
μὲν οἱ δυνατοὶ τὸν ᾿λβινον προσελάμβανον, wots τοῦ στασιάζειν αὐτοῖς 
πρρεῖχον ἄδειαν. Jos. B. J. La 1]. ς. 94. p. 798, Basil, ς. 14. Ed. Havere. 

2 Some of the Jews were raised to the rank of Roman knights, ἄνδρες 
ἱππικοῦ τάγματος, Jos, B. J. L, IL. ὁ. 25. p. 740. Basil. ed. ς. 14. n. 9. 
Haverc. whence they are called χρυσοδακτύλιοι. 

3 Jos. Ant. Jud. L. XX. ¢. 6. 7. p. 617—620. Basil. c. 8. n. 5 seq. Ha- 
verc. Comp. Bell. Jud. L. II. ¢. 13. n. 3, 5, 6. 

4 This emigration really took place soon after under Albinus, and to a 
still greater degree under Florus. Ant. Jud. L. XX. c. ult. p. 624, and De 
Bell, Jud. L. II. 6. 24. p. 738. ς. 14. n. 2. Havere. 

79 


626 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES: 


ty for subsistence, and hoped by removing to avoid participation in the 
national misery, without considering that their fate (ἐὰν ὁ κύριος ϑελή-- 
67), and even their lives, which they wished to save, were in the hand 
of God, and that, ifa higher power had so ordered, they must suffer 
punishment in their own country, which they had harassed and ill- 
treated (4: 13—17. 5: 1—6). 

Such, nearly, was the condition, such the circumstances, and the de- 
gree of civil disorder, in which the writer saw his countrymen; for, al- 
though he wrote to the whole world, his native land was immediately 
before his eyes. 


§ 164. 


When was this Epistle written? It was composed after the Epistle to 
the Hebrews ; but it cannot have been written long after that Epistle 
reached Palestine, i. e. the beginning of the 10th year of Nero.. For, 
even if the narrative concerning the death of James, the brother of our 
Lord, which we find in tne 20th book of Josephus’ Antiquities, be not 
from Josephus himself, it is certainly one of very great antiquity, inas- 
much as Origen in his Commentaries on Matthew and his work against 
Celsus, and Eusebius likewise, ascribe it to the Jewish writer. 

According to this account, James was murdered, through the vio- 
lence of the high priest, in the interval between the death of Porcius 
Festus and the accession of Albinus. 

We have no direct authentic information as to the time when Albinus 
took his station, or how long he held it in the rapid mutation of affairs; 
but it is clear, if we compare the statements of Josephus in regard to 
Gessius Florus, that this Albinus commenced his administration in the 
tenth year of Nero, and did not hold it long. Florus succeeded Al- 
binus. Under him the Jewish war broke out, about the close of the 
twelfth year of Nero, and then Florus had at least commenced the sec- 
end year of his government. 

The Epistle of James, therefore, cannot have been written before 
that to the Hebrews, 1. e. the beginning of the 10th year of Nero, nor 
after the accession of Albinus, i.e. the close of the same year. It was 
written some time in. this year, the year of his death. 


§ 165. 


‘We must now state the contents of this Epistle. At the commence- 
ment, he exhorts them to steadfastness under the trying circumstances of 
the time. We obtain wisdom, he says, from God, and we must there- 
fore pray for it (1: 1—9). Let no one think too highly of himself; we 
are all frail creatures ; blessed is he that endureth temptation. Let no 
man charge our temptations to evil upon God ; the reason of them lies 
in ourselves. From God proceeds rather all good ; as, for instance, the 
precious gift of Christianity, the principles of which we should not only 
be acquainted with, but practise in our lives (—27). 

Christianity recognizes no distinction between the rich and the poor. 
This fact demands the more attention, because religion requires the ful- 
filment of every precept in its full extent (2: 18). It is no mere faith 
or speculative belief, but a law of virtue to be obeyed in practice (—3:). 

Those who set themselves up as teachers incur much responsibility ; 


» 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 627 


we err in no way more easily than with the tongue. Let him who is 
conscious of peculiar religious attainments, evince them in his life. 
Wisdom is a child of heaven, modest, peaceable, without malevolence 
(—4:). Your evil and turbulent conduct shows that you do not yet 
possess it; pray for it, therefore, and approach God with humility. 
Judge not others; there is one judge for all (—13). 

Let no one imagine that it rests with him to escape the retribution 
which awaits the country. Ye rich men, ye must here receive the re- 
ward of your arrogance (—5: 7). 

Let all persevere with patience; keep the ancient examples of suffer- 
ing before your eyes—the final day, the Judge, are at hand. Swear 
not ; a promise is of itself sacred. Is any sick ? let him call the elders 
of the church to anoint him and pray over him. The prayer of a right- 
eous man is effectual. Finally, let every one endeavor to restore an er- 
ring companion to the right way. 


§ 166. 


And now, in conclusion, how can the discrepancy between Paul and 
James be reconciled? The former maintains the saving efficacy of 
faith without works, and the latter the inutility of faith without them. 
~ What did each understand by works and faith ? 

Both the writings in which Paul exhibits his position were directed 
against Judaism, against the obligation of its precepts upon Christians. 
Faith, therefore, in accordance with his object, is contrasted with Ju- 
daism and the works of the law. 

This contrast is expressed very distinctly in Rom. 3: 21—4:, where the 
favor and mercy of God are ascribed to faith alone χωρὶς νόμου and 
χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. From the example of Abraham, which is then 
adduced in support of this doctrine, the author deduces the conclusion, 
that the favor of God was bestowed upon the father of his nation, dca 
τῆς πίστεως, aside from the Jewish constitution and the observance of 
its precepts, which as yet had no existence (4:—5: &c.). 

This πίστες, however, is with him a confident reliance on God’s 
assurances, ἐλπίς in reference to the ἐπαγγελία which he had long 
ago given, that he would bless the world, as we have observed in treat- 
ing of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ὃ 145). 

With James, πίστες is the acknowledgment of the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity, assent to the Christian theory (2: 19, 14, 15), and ἔργα are the 
actual fulfilment of its precepts. The former, the bare speculative ac- 
knowledgment of the truths of religion, without any application to hu- 
man conduct, is useless and dead (1: 23). 

Thus each has seen and judged correctly from his own point of view, 
and neither contravenes the ideas or disparages the doctrine of the 
other. 

But James openly combats the particular arguments with which Paul 
supports his doctrine, and evinces so special a reference to the writings 
of Paul in the treatment of his subject, that we can hardly explain ey- 
erything, without supposing that he had them in his mind. Thu 
will be said, not only is there contradiction, but, what is still worse, 
sprang from a misapprehension. 


628 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


We must consider, however, that James wrote to the dispersed Jews, 
and controverted Paul as they understood him. If they did not com- 
prehend him, if they substituted for his representations their own no- 
tions, and would not understand that Moses and the ceremonial law 
were no longer the rule of religious action; if they made use of his 
arguments in support of their opinion, and justified with them the no- 
tions they had substituted for his, can James be charged with not un- 
derstanding Paul, because he attacked the erroneous interpretations 
which they made of Paul’s meaning and arguments ? 

No: James did not write against Paul, but only against an error of 
the time, which the Jewish converts, in order to sustain their prejudi- 
ces, had deduced from his writings, and the consequences of which 
were very evident immediately around him. It was to be feared that it 
might be communicated thence to all the Jewish Christians elsewhere, 
and frustrate far and wide every purpose and hope of Christianity. As 
head of the church at Jerusalem, he interposed his authority to prevent 
this threatened result, addressing himself to all the believing Jews in 
the world, for the purpose of Sustalbing the cause of virtue and practi- 
cal religion. 


§ 167. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. ἃ 


This Epistle was, according to the address at the commencement, 
directed to the Jewish Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bi- 
thynia, and Asia (1: 1). 

There is one thing which strikes us at the outset of an attentive ex- 
amination of it, viz. that between it and some of the Epistles of Paul 
which were directed to these provinces there is a great similarity, as 
respects the thought and expression and even their very plan. The 
fact is certain, the proofs of it are evident, nor is its explanation diffi- 
cult. 

Peter had not seen the Asiatic provinces. They lay within the 
sphere of Paul’s duties, and he had travelled through them, dispensing 
instruction to the inhabitants, and even while imprisoned at a distance 
had not lost sight of them. He was acquainted with their manner of 
life, failings, virtues, and vices, their general condition, and the proper 
mode of dealing with them. ‘ 

Now when an urgent occasion required the intervention of Peter, his 
consolation, or instruction, the Epistles of his esteemed colleague might 
well in such a case furnish him with directions for his procedure. 
We find that the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians and the 
first to Timothy were especially made use of by the apostle, and fre- 
quently guided him in the matter and manner of his Epistle. 

After a form of salutation, Peter commences thus (1: 8): Lvhoynros 
ὦ ϑεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ -. . ἀναγεννή-- 

us κ. τ. λ. Just so Paul to the Ephesians 1: 9): ᾿Εὐλουγητὸς ὁ ϑεὺς 

ἐ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ “Χριστοῦ, 0 εὐλογήσας ἥν, waits 

Peter then extols Christianity, its saving efficacy, its exalted founder, 
his dignity and benevolent commiseration, which merit the adoration 


* A Win I : Ϊ δ G 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 629 


of men and angels. All this part of the Epistle very much resembles 
in thought and language, Paul’s introduction to his Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians and Colossians. 

When this preparatory matter is concluded, he makes the following 
transition (2: Hi: “Anodeusvoe οὖν πᾶσαν καχίαν, καὶ πάντα δόλον, 
καὶ ὑποκοίσεις, καὶ φϑόνους, καὶ πάσας καταλαλιάς. This transition 
occurs likewise i in the Epistle to the Colossians (3:8): Λυνὶ δὲ ἀπό- 
ϑεσϑε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, ὀργὴν, ϑυμὸν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρο- 
λογίαν ; ἃ substitution ΟΥ̓ synonymes constituting their whole difference. 

In speaking, as the case required, of their civil and domestic rela- 
tions, he again consults Paul as to what it would be most pertinent to 
suggest. 4 


I Pet. 2: 13 seq. 1 Tim. 2 seq. 


¢ ’ S 
Trotaynte ovy Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων 
| ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις, προσευχὰς, ἐν - 
τεύξεις, εὐχαριστίας, 


° > ' ' | ἘΠῚ ΝΟ , > ’ 
πασῃ ἀνϑρωπίνῃ κτίσει .. .. ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. 
εἶτε βασιλεῖ, ὑπὲρ βασιλέων, 
« c ‘ 
ὡς ὑπερέχοντι . . . .. καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ OYTOY 
© © 
‘Ore οὕτως ἐστὶ Τοῦτο γὰρ καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον 
‘ ’ ~ ~ I 
τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ ϑεοῦ. ἐνώπιον... τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 
I Pet. 2: BS. Ephes. 6: 5. 
Οἱ οἰκέται, Οἱ δοῦλοι 
ὑποτασσόμενοι, | ὑπακούετε 
ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς κυρίοις χατὰ σάρκα 
τοῖς δεσπόταις " μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρύμου. 
i Pet.-3: 1. Col. 3: 18. 
c ' ἊΝ ~ c ~ 
Ὁμοίως αὖ γυναῖκες ᾿ At γυναῖκες 
‘ c δι 
ὑποτασσύμεναι | ὑποτάσσεσϑε 
~ > i ~ 2 , 
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν 
i} 
SE OR 1 Tim. 2: 9. 
| “Enontevouvtes τὴν ἐν φόβῳ | Ἔν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς 


ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν. καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτὰς, 
Ὧν ἔστω οὐχ 6 ἔξωϑεν μὴ 
ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν | ὃν πλέγμασιν, 
χαὶ περιϑέσεως χρυσέων, ] ἢ χρυσῷ, ὶ 
ἢ ἐγδύσεως ἱματίων : | ἢ μαργαρίταις, ἢ ἱματισμῷ 
χοσμος. πολυτελεῖ. 


The thoughts, as likewise the purport and number of the clauses, are 
nearly the same, and even the deviations in expression evince a more 
than accidental relationship. Though ὑπερέχων is used for ἐν ὑπέρο-- 
yn ὦν, for πλέγμασον the words ἐμπλοκὴ τριχῶν, and περίϑεσις χρυ- 


620 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


σίων for χρυσός, the fact manifests rather a design of avoiding identity 


in expression than any essential difference. 


Peter himself, too, is so far 


from denying his acquaintance with Paul’s Epistles, that he even re- 
fers his readers. expressly to these writings of his beloved brother (2 
Pet. 3: 15), and recommends their perusal. 


§ 168. 


Moreover, we find some passages which coincide entirely with pas- 


sages in James; e. g. 


1 Pet. 1: 6, 7. 


᾿Εν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσϑε 
λίγον ἄρτι... .. 
λυπηϑέντες 
ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς " 


er 4 ’ c - 
ἵνα τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν 
τῆς πίστεως 


εὑρηϑῆ εἰς ἔπαινον x. τ. }. 


1 Pet. 1: 24, 


- 4 
Διότι πᾶσα σὰρξ 
’ 
ὡς χόρτος 
\ ~ ΄ I~ 
καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὑτῆς 
” , 
ὡς ἄνϑος χόρτου. 


ms , 
᾿Εξηράνϑη ὃ χόρτος 
, > - 
καὶ τὸ ἄνϑος αὐτοῦ 
ἐξέπεσε. 


I Pet. 5: 5, 6. 


4 c ΄ ‘ 3 , 
“Ὅτι ὃ Geog ὑπερεφανοίς ἀντιτάσσε- 

ται, ταπεινοὶς δὲ 

δίδωσι χάριν. 
Ταπεινώϑητε οὖν 

‘ ‘ as 

ὑπὸ THY κραταιὰν χεῖρα 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 

« « ~ c , 
ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ. 


James 1: 2 seq. 


‘ c , 
Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασϑε ... - 
ὅταν 
περιπέσητε 
πειρασμοῖς ποικίλοις " 
γινώσκοντες 
εκ A , c ~ 
ote τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν 
τῆς πίστεως 


κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν᾽ κ. τ. λ. 
James 1: 10 seq. 


“Ὅτι 


ὡς ἄνϑος χόρτου παρελεύσεται. 
᾿Ανέτειλε ὃ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι, 4 
καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον, 
καὶ τὸ ἄνϑος αὐτοῦ 
ἐξέπεσε. 


James 4: 6, 10. 


c ‘ c , 3 [4 
O ϑὲος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτασσεται, 
ταπεινοῖς δὲ 
δίδωσι χάριν. .... 
Ταπεινώϑητε 
ἐνώπιον 
τοῦ κυρίου 
xc , elias 
καὶ ὕψωσει ὑμᾶς. 


The passage in 1 Pet. 5:5, and James 4: 6, is taken, it is true, from 
Proverbs 3: 34, and the coincidence in regard to it may have been ac- 
cidental; but the precisely similar conclusions drawn from it by both 
(similar in language as well as substance) makes accident wholly im- 


probable. 


There is, moreover, another instance, 1 Peter 4: 8 and 


James 5: 20, in which accident must be supposed to have led them for 


=". wa 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 631 


the second time to the same passage in the same book : “Ore 9 ἀγάπη 
καλύψει πλῆϑος auagtemy—and ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν. ,. . καὶ 
καλύψει πλῆϑος ἁμαρτιῶν (See Prov. 10: 12). 

The question, which of them transferred these parts from the com- 
position of the other into his own, depends, ‘no doubt, upon the question, 
which first published his Epistle? This is not, however, a mere mat- 
ter of curiosity, but involves important consequences, one of which we 
will here mention. If, as was really the case, James composed his 
Epistle first, the parts alluded to must certainly have been drawn from 
James, and then can any higher proof be required that the Epistle of 
James is a genuine monument of the apostolic age? Could the testi- 
mony of other witnesses be of so much effect in satisfying us of this, 
as a proof resting on so high, so unexceptionable authority 7 


§ 169. 


The main object of the Epistle is to inspirit and console persons in 
distress ; and its contents are as follows : 

I salute you through Jesus Christ, throngh whom God will conduct us 
to glory, if we endure with constancy our present trials, which are for 
our benefit. For the end of them is a state of blessedness which even he 
who purchased it, though so exalted, attained only by his sufferings 
(—1: 13). 

Therefore, prepare yourselves for the moment when this reward shall 
be bestowed. Be worthy of the Lord, ve who are purchased by his suf- 
ferings, and worthy of the hopes which we have through him. We are 
peat for something higher than the enjoyment of this fleeting life 

—2: 1). 

Lay aside every thing which defiles you and renders you unworthy 
of him. He is the centre of all our hopes, our pattern, and Saviour 
(—2.11). So regulate your conduct, that no one can reproach you as 
evil-doers; render honest obedience to the powers that be (—2: 18). 

This precept extends also to servants and slaves in relation to their 
masters ; for even to them the meek and suffering Jesus should be an 
example (—3:). Women, too, should be submissive, modest, consider- 
ing noiseless virtue as their greatest ornament; men should cherish 
and honor them (—3: 8). 

All should be full of sympathy, love, and indulgence towards each 
other, and be guiltless, every moment able to answer for themselves, 
that their adversaries and calumniators may be ashamed; for Christ 
hath suffered once for all that he might procure us a good conscience 
and make us acceptable to God (—4:). 

Our past transgressions, for which Jesus suffered, should no longer 
be discoverable in us ; we should rather make preparation by our lives 
for a great catastrophe, which is not far distant (—4: 12). When this 
takes place, we shall have opportunity to suffer with joyful endurance, 
as Jesus did. It will be happy for us if we are reproached as his disci- 
ples, and not as criminals (—5:). 

Therefore, ye elders, watch over your flocks; ye that are subordi- 
nate, demean yourselves assuch! Let every one lay aside worldly 


632 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


cares; be on the watch; our trial is great. God give you strength! 
I have already written once to you by Sylvanus, and now salute you 
again. 


§ 170. 


We must close our eyes, not to perceive that the whole of this Epis- 
tle is directed to one end, the preparation of the churches of Asia Mi- 
nor for severe suffering. Its moral instructions are only subsidiary. 
The exhortations to renounce evil, to acquire a pure conscience, to re- 
fute the calumnies of the time by their innocence, to abstain from vio- 
lent disputes, to pay respect to the powers that were, to exercise increas- 
ed love and fidelity towards each other, etc. are merely directions how 
to alleviate their fearful fate or bear it better. In like manner, the re- 
peated references to the example of Jesus in his sufferings and death 
are designed to strengthen them for the endurance of calamitous oc- 
currences. The exhortation to the slaves, too, has reference to the un- 
happy days in which, for real or imaginary wrongs and hardships, they 
frequently became the accusers and betrayers of their masters. We 
therefore with propriety inquire, what were the events in history for 
which the author of this Epistle wished to prepare the churches of the 
five provinces. 

1. He describes them in the following manner. It is not to be 
thought strange that a fiery trial awaits believers, to try their character ; 
for in this respect they only have a common lot with the founder of their 
religion (4: 12, 13). He declares the dreaded trial to be a judgment 
from God, which would be begun by him in his own-household, and on 
that account would only be the more terrible in its final operation upon 
those who were not his followers (4: 17); or a day of visitation, such 
as God has appointed to decide the fate of whole nations, ΠῚ 2 Ξ 97, 
Isaiah 10: 8, πτρξ, ὩΣ Jer. 10: 15, καιρὸς ἐπισκοπῆς, Luke 19; 44, 
Such a day, ἡμέρα ἐπισχοπῆς (2: 12) awaits them ; and they should 
endure it to the glory of God. A comparison of the passages referred 
to may put the force of the figure in its full light. He further declares 
that the enemy of Christ and adversary of all good is now going about 
like a ravenous jion seeking his prey, and that the sufferings which 
threatened them were to be experienced, not within a limited sphere, but 
among all their brethren in the faith, αἀδελᾳότητε; not in the Roman 
empire alone, but in the whole world, ἐν κόσμῳ, among the socii and 
federati, all who were desirous of being on good terms with the Ro- 
mans (5:8, 9). : 

These traits, which go to make up the picture of the condition of 
Christians in the five provinces, denote no particular local disturbances 
on the part of the Jews, nor brief outrages here and there on the 
part of the populace ; but they refer to a time of terror and calamity to 
the Christians generally, not only in all Asia Minor, but in the whole 
world. The magnitude and universality of the evil evince that it must 
have proceeded from the highest civil authority, which alone could oc- 
casion so wide spread and simultaneous a result. Now there is no 
event which can have had such important and general effects, but the 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 633 


first persecution of the Christians, in mpiiok Nero, with ingenious wan- 
tonness, set an example for bers, 

2. A second criterion is contained in the Penedete 2 2: 12. 3: 16. 4: 16. 
The accusation had gone abroad against the adherents to the new re- 
ligion, that they were evil doers, κακοποιοὶ; so that indeed the name 
Χριστιανός denoted a person deserving of punishment. Heretofore, 
all complaints had related toa difference in religious views, in refer- 
ence ‘to which the Jews were always ‘accusers, except in the case of 
the complaint made by the silver-smiths of Ephesus. At Corinth Gal- 
lio drove them from his judgment-seat, and justly acknowledged that 
no crime or misdemeanor was apparent (Acts 18: 14—16). Felix and 
Festus, together with king Agrippa, regarded the accusation made be- 
fore them, although the high-priests were the complainants, as a dispute 
about doctrines, and could perceive no criminality (Acts 24:—27:). At 
Ephesus it was even the case that one of the officers of the city de- 
fended the Christians, and declared them guiltless of any crime against 
the goddess or the holy i image (Acts 19:37). The name Χριστίανος, 
so late as towards the end of the 7th, year of Nero’s reign, was so far 
from being an odious one, that Agrippa did not consider the adoption 
of it as degrading, or prejudicial to his royal dignity: ἐν ὀλίγῳ μὲ 
πείϑεις Χριστιανὸν γενέσϑαι (Acts 26: 28). - 

It was far from being thought of, even at this time, to charge the 
whole body of Christians with criminal conduct; and no trace of such an 
accusation appears till three years later, when Nero charged upon the 
Christians his own crime, the monstrous conflagration in the capital, 
and punished them as the authors of the abominable deed. It is on 
this occasion that they first occur in Roman history as a new, pecu- 
liar sect, termed Christiani from their founder Christus ; and many se-. 
vere accusations are heaped upon them.! 

3. It was necessary that they should be always ready to exculpate 
themselves (3: 15) and to be led away to punishment, not merely ex- 
posed to revilings, but (as appears from the tertium comparationis 
which the apostle uses) to suffer as thieves, murderers, and seditious 
persons (though far from being such), i. e. to meet death or such punish- 
ments as were awarded to grievous crimes—and this because they were 
“Χριστιανοὶ (4: 15, 16). Accordingly, he says that he who is appointed 
to suffer by the will of God should commend his soul to his Creator (4: 
19), or, in other words, die a pious death (Luke 23: 46. Acts 7: 59).? 
There is no ground of probability, much less any historical evilehet 
that Christians in the Roman empire out of Palestine were punished 
with death for their religion before the time we have mentioned. 

According to the Annals of Tacitus, the first examples of such cruel- 
ty were presented at Rome under the Consuls Lecanius and M. Licinius 
Crassus, in the tenth consulate of Nero’s reign. 

‘The conflagration, which was the cause or occasion of the persecu- 
tion, began on the AJIT. Kal. Scatiles,> in the latter part of July ; but 
the persecution did not-commence immediately. Devices of every kind 


' Tacit. Annal. XV. 44. 
2 Pott, Ep. Cath. Vol. II. Ed. secunda ad 1 Peter 4: 19. 
3 Lipsius, in Excurs. A. ad Tacit. Ann. L. XV. 

80 


634 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


were employed, to quiet the indignation of those who had suffered by. the 
conflagration ; days of expiation appointed to conciliate the gods ; and 
every method used to do away the odium excited against Nero. Final- 
ly, when all was in vain, persons were sought for who could be held up 
as the criminals, and the Christians were selected. 

The Epistle cannot have been writtén before these terrible events, 
which must have occurred late in this year, and have filled all who bore 
the name of Christian with consternation. 

Nor can it have been written till a considerable later period. For we 
must suppose the lapse of several months before the news could reach 
the oriental provinces of the empire. An additional interval must also 
have elapsed before the apostle could gain information respecting the 
condition and fearful apprehensions of the churches. 

Thus the Epistle was certainly not written in this year, but in the 
following consulate, or the eleventh year of Nero’s reign. 

Whether the persecution extended beyond the walls of the city to 
the remote provinces of the empire, or whether, on this occasion, they 
were only distressed with apprehensions, history does not inform us. 
Peter rather represents the misfortune as to be apprehended than al- 
ready in existence (1: 6), εἰ δέον ἐστί (3: 17) εἰ ϑέλει τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ, tf need be, if the will of God beso. The fear, however, was well- 
grounded ; for what might not be apprehended, when in the centre of the 
empire, the source of all civil authority, such accusations had been 
made against the fraternity of Christians, and every former invention 
of cruelty had been exceeded in their punishment ? 

The prospect was terrible, even if it never was realized ; a mortal 
agony must have been upon them, even though the stroke was averted 
by a higher power. The dreadful event at Rome must have spread 
terror among all Christians. It was certainly the most momentous 
occurrence in regard to Christianity which had taken place since its 
rise, and we should have had good reason for wonder, had it occasioned 
no letter of consolation, had it left no trace of itself in the apostolic 
writings. 


§ 171. 


We wish here to recal to mind what we have before shown respect- 
ing the Epistle of James from internal marks and by analysis, or, as 
in another case we should rather say, from reasons of higher criticism ; 
viz. that the Epistle was written in Palestine, by an inhabitant of Pal- 
estine, and by that James, among several of the name, who was the 
brother of our Lord. Now (as appears from § 168) either Peter has. ap- 
propriated to himself figures and clauses from the Epistle of James, or, 
vice versd, James borrowed them from the Epistle of Peter; and the 
decision of the alternative depends solely on the chronological relation 
which the Epistles bear to each other. The date of the Epistle of Pe- 
ter is definitely ascertained. It was written in the eleventh year of Ne- 
ro; while,on the other hand, the brother of our Lord, to whom, not 


arbitrarily but with good reason, we attribute the Epistle which bears 


the name of James, died as early as the tenth year of Nero (§ 164). 
Thus Peter, who wrote latest, bears witness to the previous existence 


» 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 635 


of the Epistle of James, and, not only so, but his testimony assures us, 
moreover, that it came from some James, the appropriation of whose 
language Peter did not consider to be beneath his dignity as an apos- 
tle. While, then, the Epistle of James is not deficient in internal 
verification, and only wants external evidence, particularly among the 
Greek fathers, Peter’s recognition of it is ample indemnification for 
the deficiency. 


The first Epistle of Peter was written from Babylon (5: 13). ἯΙ ἐν 
αβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτη i. 6. ἐχκλεσία, is termed συνεκλεκτὴ ἴῃ refer- 
ence to the ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις in 1: 1. The most recent expo- 
sitor of the Epistle is inclined to understand by 7 ἐν ϑαβυλῶνε συν- 
ἐκλεχτή, the wife of Peter, as if the apostle intended to say, my wife, 
whom I have left behind at Babylon, saluteth you ; and from this inter- 
pretation draws the inference, that Peter must have written the Epistle 
at some other place than Babylon.! How did she know, then, that her 
husband was writing to Asia Minor? or how did he receive commis- 
sion from his wife to salute the churches of the five provinces? By 
letter or message, it may be said. But any thing of this nature must 
have been attended with much delay and uncertainty. Suppose, then, 
that Peter commenced his Epistle at Babylon, and finished it while on a . 
journey. At all events, Peter, according to this opinion, had but a 
short time before been at Babylon, where he left his wife, and where he 
had received information respecting the condition of the provinces of 
Asia Minor, and had determined to write tothem soon. At all events, 
moreover, the Epistle was written at no great distance from Babylon. 

This name brings first to every one’s mind the celebrated Babylon 
upon the Euphrates. There was another, however, in Egypt, not far 
from Memphis ;? and some will have it that by Babylon is meant Rome, 
because the Apocalypse makes use of this metonymy in regard to 
Rome ; not considering that, though it may be very proper in a work 
wholly of a symbolical character, it would not be expected in the sub- 
scription to an Epistle, even though arcana nomina ecclestarum existed 
among Christians. 

When the name Babylon is used alone, one would think it must de- 
note the ancient renowned city, which is first suggested to every one’s 
mind, Babylon per eminentiam; one less celebrated would have been 
mentioned with some mark of distinction, as, 6. g , Babylon in Egypt. 

But, it isobjected, were there any Jews at that time in ancient Baby- 
Jon? At first the question may appear ridiculous. How often does 
Josephus speak of Jews in Babylon, as does also, at a later period, the 
Talmud of them and their celebrated school in that city. But the pas- 
sages in Josephus refer to an earlier period, and those in the Talmud to 
one considerably later than the date of this Epistle. In the latter part 
of the Nie a shady Sola a great change sie bee in gl condi- 


1 Pott, Ep. Cath. Vol. If. Ed. altera ad 1 Pet. 5: 13. 
2 Diod. L. I. 6. 56. Jos. Ant. L. I. c. 15.fAntonini Itin. p. 169. Ed. Wesse- 
ling. δ, “55. 


x 
ὯΝ 


090 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


tion of the Jews of Babylon. ‘The Babylonians, highly exasperated at 
the insolence of a powerful Jew, violently expelled the Jews from the 
city, and they fled to Seleucia. Five years after, the plague drove 
away all such as had been permitted to remain on account of connex-. 
ions or for other special reasons. ‘The Jews in Seleucia, to the num- 
ber of fifty thonsand, were some time after massacred. ‘Those who es- 
caped sought safety at Ctesiphon; but they felt so little assurance of 
permanent security here, that they removed to Neerda and Nisibis." 
This exasperation could hardly have subsided so much in the course of 
a few years, that the Jews would venture to return to Babylon. 

But there were others to whom the instructions of the apostle might 
be addressed and would be acceptable. The σεβόμενοι, or pious Gen- 
tiles, were everywhere more disposed to receive the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity than the Jews. There were such in the East, as well as among 
the Greeks and Romans.” 

Let us, however, look a moment at the Babylon in Egypt. Suppos- 
ingiPeter to have gathered a church here, or visited one already exist- 
ing, in order to ascertain its doctrines and condition, and to regulate 
whatever required to be corrected and amended, we have an explana- 
tion of a fact which is stated in history. Mark, we are told (see § 75), 
went from Rome, where under Peter’s guidance he had written his 
Gospel, to Egypt, and took charge of the Christian churches in that 
country. Now whatis more natural, than that Mark should consider 
it his duty, after the death of Peter, to guide and uphold the churches 
which he had Jabored with Peter to establish or to regulate? 

But, on the other hand, we meet with a difficulty in the circumstance, 
that according to Strabo’s description of it, this Babylon was little more 
than a garrison, occupied by one of the three Roman legions which 
were quartered in Egypt.* 


§ 178. 


/ 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


The first Epistle of Peter had, besides its general destination, one 
more particular, to a certain church or to several which was or were un- 
der the direction of one Sylvanus, probably the same who was at one time 
Paul’s travelling-companion. Peter had already written once before, 
and communicated instruction respecting some doubts upon doctrinal 
points (1 Pet. 5: 12); but of this letter nothing remains, not even a 
definite intimation as to the churches to which it was directed. 

The apprehension which Peter felt as to the maintenance of pure doc- 
trine was, however, becoming more and more well-grounded. False 
teachers gained the ascendancy, acquired adherents, and vexed the 
churches with heresies, while they were trembling at the horrors of Ne- 


4 


1 Jos. Ant. L. XVIIL. ¢. 9. n. 8, 9. 
“2 Jos. B. Jud. L. II. c. 20. n. 2, and c. 18. n. 2. Contra Apion. L. H-e.10. 
3 Strabo, Geogr. L. XVII. p. 555. Ima Casaub. and 2da Casaub. p. 807. 


» aw 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 637 


ro’s persecution. There was, then, it would seem, no apostle in Asia 
Minor. Paul must Mave been still in the East, and John cannot have 
been then at. Ephesus, since aid was sought at a distance. ‘This absence 
of any authority that could restrain the heretics was naturally a great 
help to their endeavors; and they did not neglect to profit by it. 

The second of the Epistles extant was directed to the same church 
or churches as the lost Epistle, which sustained the orthodoxy of Sylva- 
nus and commended his fidelity under the circumstances of the time 
(1*Pet. 5: 12); and the same, also, to which the first of the Epistles extant 
was more especially directed. Peter calls this Epistle the second, dev- 
τέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολὴν (2 Pet. 3: 1), and thus seems to have re- 
garded the Epistle dea «Σιλουανοῦ as a private one, and Sylvanus as his 
agent, by whom he laid something before the church, without publish- 
ing to the world the letter itself, which may have contained some spe- 
cial communications. 

The Epistle of Jude treats of the same errors, opposes the same per- 
sons, to which the 2d of Peter relates. ‘Their occasion, therefore, Δ 
their purpose, and destination must have been the same. Now, as the 
second of Peter was directed to Asia Minor, no other destination can 
be properly assigned to the Epistle of Jude. Persia, then, is out of the 
question, though it has been designated as the country to which it was 
sent. 

The statement that this apostle wrote against the Magi and Persians 
is so far well-founded, that he opposed doctrines held by the Magi, but 
the supposition that he wrote against the Persians is the bold invention 
of a historical conjecturer, who gave to the truth an addition of his own. 

Thus the Epistle of Peter remains our sole and a faithful guide in re- 
gard to the local destination of James’ Epistle, if it be true that the Ickes 
similarity of two compositions, written not with general aims, but anf 
gainst particular doctrines and absurdities, necessarily supposes simi- 
lar local and other circumstances as the occasion and foundation of 
both. . 


§ 174. 


The contents of the second Epistle of Peter are as follows: Labor 
incessantly to advance in the knowledge of the blessed doctrine of Je- 
sus, which produces every virtue, no one of which shall be unrewarded 
(—1: 12). I therefore exhort you anew ; and, as an eye-witness of what 
Jesus did and taught, I can give you more accurate instruction than 
those who strive to mislead you by false representations (—2:). 

False teachers have crept in among you, whose destruction is certain. 
God spared not even the disobedient angels; he has set before our eyes, 
as examples, the punishment of the whole world before the flood, as 
also particularly of Sodom and Gomorrah. Much more may they ex- 
pect punishment, who give themselves up to every impurity, and speak 
evil of God and spiritual beings, which even the angels have never ven- 
tured to do in respect to beings inferior to them. Full of uncleanness 
and covetousness, they strive after lucre, like Balaam; they are windy 


clouds without water (—3:). ᾿ 
Remember the words of prophets and apostles, who have foretold the 
. 
al 


638 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


coming of our Lord and the return of the earth to chaos when he shall 
appear as Judge. Hold yourselves in readiness, as Paul has already ex- 
horted you. 


§ 175. 


Contents of the Epistle of Jude. There have crept in among you 
unawares certain men, long since ripe for destruction, who deny our 
Lord: Remember that God punished the Jews when they rebelled 
against him, and even the disobedient angels; Sodom and Gomorrah, 
too, he made a monument of chastisement for their abominations. These 
men, full of sensuality, revile God and spiritual beings, though Michael 
dared not revile even Satan. ‘They thirst for gain like Balaam, perish 
like Korah, are windy clouds without water, raging waves of the sea. 
Enoch declared the judgment which awaits their wickedness. But re- 
main ye firm in the faith and in love, in which may God confirm you. 


§ 176. 


The similarity of the second chapter of the 2d Epistle of Peter to 
the little composition of Jude is so great as to strike every one’s atten- 
tion. It does not, therefore, need proof; but the reason of it demands 
careful investigation. 

Was it, then, Jude who borrowed from Peter ? or did Peter use Jude’s 
small composition in preparing his own? There is certainly little 
probability that Jude would have made use of foreign aid as to the 
ideas and phraseology of so brief a production as his, consisting of on- 
ly twenty-five verses. 

In instituting a comparison between the two, however, a sagacious 
observer cannot fail to perceive which is the original. The phraseolo- 
gy of Jude is simple, unlabored, and expressive without ornament; that 
of Peter is artificial, and wears the appearance of embellishment and 
amplification. 


Jude v. 8. 2 Pet. 2: 10. 
“Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι Μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς 
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, σάρκα ἐν ἐπιϑυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους 
μὲν μιαΐνουσι, κυριότητα καὶ κυριοτητος καταφρονοῦντας. 
δὲ ἀϑετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ τολμηταὶ, αὐϑάδεις, δόξας ov 
βλασφημοῦσιν. | τρέμουσι βλασφημοῦντες. 
Jude v. 10. 2 Pet. 2: 12. 
Οὗτοι δὲ, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ | Οὗτοι δὲ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα φυσικὰ, 
οἴδασι, βλασφημοῦσιν " γεγεννημένα. εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ 
ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς, ὡς τὰ φϑορὰν, ἐν ἄγνοο ὕσι βλασφη- 
ι ἄλογα ζῶα, ἐπίστανται, μοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φϑορᾷ αὑτῶν 
ἐν τούτοις φϑείρονται. καταφϑαρήσονται. 


THE CATHOLIC 


Jude v. 16. 
© 
r δὲ ἐδ 4 4 
Οὑτοί tiou . . . . κατὰ τὰς 
ἐπυιϑυμίας αὑτῶν πορευόμενοι " 
‘ ld ~ 
καὶ TO στόμα αὐτῶν 

λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα. 


EPISTLES. 639 


2 Pet. 2: 18. 


“Paégoyxu γὰρ ματαιότητος 
φϑεγγόμενοι δελεάζουσιν ἐν 
ἐπιϑυμίαις σαρκὸς, ἀσελγείαις, 
[τοὺς ὀλέγως ἀποφυγόντας τοὺς 
ἐν πλάνη ἀναστρεφομένους. 


In the following passage in Jude I have reversed the real order of the 
words. It is necessary that it should be read in this inverted manner, in 
order to make the parallelism more apparent. 


Jude v. 4. 


? , 
Agvouusvos 
δεσπότην 
μετατιϑέντες 


> τάν. ἵ 
εἰς ἀσέλγειαν 
> ~ ‘ ~ ae ~ [2 
ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν 


εἰς τὸ κρῖμα 
προγεγραμμένοι 


TOAKL 


2 Pet. 2:1, 2, 3. 


Καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς 
δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι, 
ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν 
ἀπώλειαν. .... 

Ls ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, 
δὲ οὺς 7 δδὸς τῆς ἀληϑείας 
βλασφημηϑήσεται . . .. 
οἷς τὸ κρῖμα 


ἔχπαλαι 


? > ~ Ν᾿ Coe ἼἋἤἘἨ 7 he 
οὐκ ἀργεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὑτῶν 
>? , 
ov νυστάζει. 


In the first passage, while Jude says simply, σάρκα μιαίνουσι, Peter 
has ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιϑυμίᾳ πορευόμενοι---1 48 κυρίοτητα αϑε- 
τοῦσι, Peter κυρεύτητος καταφρονοῦντες, τολμηταὶ, αὐϑάδεις---1 46 
δόξας βλασφημοῦσι, Peter δόξας οὐ τρέμουσε βλασφημοῦντες ; in all 
which cases it is evident that Peter’s expressions are circumlocutions 
and amplifications. It is just so with the other passages cited; they 
are moulded from the simple language of Jude to a more elegant form, 
are embellished with participles, and sometimes exhibit rhetorical am- 
plifications. 

If this observation be correct, and it is so obviously true that it will 
hardly be disputed, it is a natural inference, that Peter had the Epistle 
of Jude before him and applied it to his own purposes in his own way.' 

Both, moreover, mention a controversy between angels and fallen 
spirits, conducted by the former with so much forbearance, that they 


1 Tt hag been attempted to explain the similarity of Peter and Jude by sup- 
posing them to have made use of the same originals, such, e. g., as the book 
from which they derived the account of « dispute of the angels with inferior 
spirits. If the resemblance were limited to agreement in such matters of eru- 
dition, this-supposition might hold good. But it extends, also, to the descrip- 
tion of their contemporaries, to the picture they give of certain false teachers, 
and to the representation of their vices and errors, which they cannot well 
have drawn from previous sources, It extends even to the salutation in the two 
Fpistles, which cannot have been borrowed from any common source: χαρες 
vu καὶ εἰρήνη why dev ety ; and Jude: ἔλεος υἱμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη . . . πληϑυνϑείη. 


. authority in addition. 


640 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


did not revile even such opponents (2 Pet. 2: 11. Jude v.9). In regard 
to the passage in Peter, we are told, it is true, that κατ᾽ αὐτῶν may refer, 
not to spirits, to the preceding doEas, but to the heretics. But how was 
it possible;for the angels to commit blasphemy against them ; and must it 
not, in that case, have been βλάσφημος κρίσεις for Jude and Peter to 
speak as they do of the wickedness of the heretics, for which, accord- 
ing to their statement, eternal damnation was not too severe ἃ punish- 
ment ? ; 

This piece of erudition was not of such a nature that every reader 
could be suppused acquainted with it; it was at least not in the sacred 
books of the Jews, and could have been known to them only from other 
reading or from special communication. It was, therefore, necessary 
that it should be presented at length, or at least so definitely as to show 
what the writer intended and to what he alluded. 

In Jude this is the case; he states thé matter definitely, and express- 
ly mentions the dispute of Michael with the devil about the body of Mo- 
ses. But Peter is so very general in his language, and expresses him- 
self so indefinitely on the subject, that we could not conjecture to what 
he referred, if we had not Jude in our possession. So it must have 
been with any one in ancient times, however well he might have been ac- 
quainted with the occurrence between the devil and the archangel. It 
must have been necessary that he should learn from another source to 
what the apostle alluded, in order to understand him. 

The procedure of Peter in regard to this passage, therefore, shows 
that he presumed Jude to be already in the hands of his readers; that 
he thought it justifiable to suppose they would understand him fully 
without any necessity of greater minuteness or definiteness on his 
part. 


§ 177. 


Now, if the originality of Jude is clear from a comparison of the two 
writers, particularly from their phraseology, we are entitled to all such 
inferences from this fact as can be legitimately deduced from it. 

It seems that Peter took, in his second letter to the churches of Asia 
Minor the same course as in his first. In the latter he chose Paul as 
his example, and under his guidance planned and executed his instruc- 
tions to these churches, respecting which he had not much knowledge, 
making some use, also, of the Epistle of James; and in his second 
composition he guided himself by the Epistle of Jude, who had already 
attacked the heretics against whom he wished now to oppose his own 

The style, too, of the second Epistle of Peter, is the same as that of 
the first. ‘Chere is the same manner of appropriating the ideas and ex- 
pressions of others, giving them certain slight alterations, sometimes 
embellishing them, setting them off with participles, and otherwise am- 
plifying them. 

This resemblance of the second Epistle of Peter to the first does not 
consist merely in certain modes of expression, such as any one who un- 
dertook to forge a composition in the name of another would natural- 
ly select and employ ; but extends to the plan and private scheme of 


— 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 641 


the composition, to peculiarities in its execution, and to the ingenuity 
shown in preventing the attention from being ar rested by whatever for 
special reasons it was necessary to borrow out of other writers. ‘This 
resemblance, therefore, is not superficial but characteristic; and so 
thorough as to denote an identity of authorship. We find no difficulty 
in clearly recognising Peter, and perceive that the second Epistle is a 
genuine production of his mind. 

But if this is not satisfactory, and we are required further to point 
out resemblances in phraseology, we are able to comply with the de- 

mand. A favorite word with Peter is Sumo ania 1 Pet. 1: 15, 18. 2: 
12. 3: 1, 2, 16; with which compare 2 Pet. 2: 7. 3: 12. ᾿Απόϑεσις i is 
used by him alone, 1. Pet. 3: 21. 2 Pet. 1: diy The word ἀρετή, is 
used it is true by Paal, for moral excellence, once at least (Philip. 4: 8), 
but it is used by Peter alone in the sense of power, | Pet. 1: 9. 2 Pet. 
1: By Both Epistles use ἀληϑέια to denote Christian doctrines, 1 Pet. 
1: 22. 2 Pet. 1: 12... The expressions, κομιζόμενοι σωτηρίαν, 1 Pet. 
1: °, noursiods στέφανον, 5: 4, and χομιούμενον μεσϑόν, 2 Pet. 2: 
13, have a similar signibeation in both Epistles. The expression, 
ἐποπτεύσαντες, 1 Pet. 2: 12. 3: 2, and ἐπόπταν γενηθέντες, 2 Peter 1: 
16, borrowed from ‘a mysteries, is peculiar to Peter. The words 
ἄσπιλος and ἄμωμος in connexion, 1 Pet. 1: 19, occur again together’ 
in 2 Pet. 3: 14, as likewise σπῖλοι and woot, 2 ‘Pet. 2: 13. Xoonyey, 
} Pet. 4: 11, and ἐπεχορηγεῖν, 2 Pet. 1: 11, occur sometimes, though 
rarely, in Paul’s writings. ‘Phe expression ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, 
2 Pet. 2: 14, bears analogy to πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας, 1 Pet. 4: 1. 

Relying on these grounds, I cannot consider the declaration of the 
writer that he was an eye-witness with others of Christ’s transfigura- 
tion (2 Pet. 1: 16—19) as a mere literary artifice, designed to procure 
the composition an unmerited estimation. The more unobtrusive indi- 
cations, as well as those obvious to the view of every one, appropriate 
the authorship of the second Epistle to the writer of the first. 

But, if the second Epistle of Peter is genuine, that of Jude must be 
so too. It must not only be supposed to have existed in the days of the 
apostles, when Peter wrote his Epistle, but to have been written by some 
one whom the apostle esteemed worthy of being selected as his guide 
in opposing the errors and false teachers of countries which he had not 
seen himself, and concerning which he could only derive information 
from others. 

We might, therefore, be satisfied as to the genuineness of these two 
writings on internal grounds, even if the historical argument and the 
testimonies of the ancients were less satisfactory. 


§ 178. 


We are not unmindful, however, that our positions are still endanger- 
ed from another quarter. Not long since, the second Epistle of Peter 
met with an opponent, who menaced its dismemberment, and maintain- 
ed his right to do this violence with learning and acuteness.' He sepa- 
rates it into three distinct portions, which happen to correspond with 


‘1 “Der zweyte Brief Petri kritisch untersucht,” ih Prof. Charles Ube, 
Heidelb. 1821, 8vo. 
81 


642 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


the present division into chapters. The first chapter he ascribes to 
Peter, and considers it to be one of his Epistles the conclusion of 
which was early lost, or perhaps a fragment of a long letter of which 
only the beginning has been preserved. This precious relic of the apos- 
tle was regarded by some unknown person as adapted to effect a well- 
meant purpose, and he added to it at different times the second and third 
chapters, intending to confound the heretics of the day by the great 
name at the commencement, or to preserve believers from their influ- 
ence. ‘The Epistle of Jude, with some alteration, afforded him mate- 
rials for the second chapter, and he made some use of it likewise in the 
third. 

But how happens it, then, that the first chapter contains preparatory 
references to the heretics who are the subject of the second and third ? 
In these latter chapters they are charged with self-contrived doctrines, 
πλαστοῖς λογοις (2: 3), by means of which they enlisted in their be- 
half the desire for dissolute pleasure, ἐπιϑυμία μιασμοῦ (2: 10), and 
placed a lure in the way of others in order to procure adherents (2: 
18); as they themselves, also, gave way to their lusts, ἔν ἐπεϑυμίαις 
πορευόμενοι (9: 8). Their chief heresy consisted in denying the sec- 
ond coming of our Lord, παρουσία, to judge mankind, which they did 
for the purpose of removing every restraint upon licentiousness (3: 4. 
Comp. 3: 12). 

Now at the very outset of the Epistle he warns against the corruption 
of lust, anpouyo ντὲς---τῆς ἐν ἐπιϑυμίᾳ φϑορᾶς (1:4), and shortly after 
makes mention of cunningly- devised fables, σεσυφισμένοις μύϑοις (Ι: 
16), against which he opposes his authority ; for he had been intimate 
with our Lord and a witness of his transfiguration on the mount, and pos- 
sessed information concerning Christ more to be depended on than the 
statements of others, particularly concerning his second coming, παροὺ- 
σία, and his power (1: 16—19). The σεσοφισμένον μύϑον of the first 
chapter correspond to the πλαστοῖς λόγοις of the second; the ἐπεϑυ- 
flo φϑορᾶς tothe ἐπεϑυμία μιασμοῦ; and παρουσία, ‘of course, to 
παρουσία. Ought we, then, to disunite what is so closely woven togeth- 
er by its author? 

As the actual connexion is so clear, it would be of no consequence if 
the transition were rather abrupt, as is frequently the case with authors 
of little cultivation and experience. But this is by no means the case 
here. ‘The teachers of the theosophic system in Asia Minor, of whom 
the false teachers referred to in this Epistle were probably a branch, 
pretended to be in possession of the means of procuring the power of 
prophecy (ὃ 131); in opposition to whom the author asserts that he had 
obtained a more sure knowledge of futurity, βεβαιότερον προφητικὸν 
λόγον (i: 19), and then proceeds to say, that prophecy, as presented in 
the Holy Scriptures,is not a matter for human interpretation, but must be 
explained from above (1:20, 21). Thus there have been false prophets ; 
and false teachers are now at hand, whose character will be as follows, 
etc. (2: 1 seq.). This is the train of thought through which he passes 
to the subsequent description of the heretics ; ; nor do we perceive any 
interruption or chasm, such as usually betrays the junction of distinct 
writings. 

The circumstance that Jude uses the word παρεισέδυσαν, they have 


παν 1 


- 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 643 


crept in, while Peter speaks of them as yet to come, should not create 
any difficulty ; for it is evident, even from Jude, that they had not yet 
avowed themselves publicly and with unblushing front. 

The third chapter has the same real connexion with what precedes, 
if not as plain a verbal connexion, as the second. The subject contin- 
ues to be the false teachers. Jude had not yet finished speaking of 
them, nor consequently had Peter, who followed Jude. He makes the 
same use of Jude’s Epistle as before. 


ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, 
καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων 
ἡμῶν ἐντολῆς, 
τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος " 
ἐλεύσονται 
ἐπὶ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν 


c ‘ a > ΄ 
UNO τῶν ἀποστολων 


2 Pet. 9: 2,3. | Jude, v. 17, 18. 
Μινησϑῆναι τῶν προειρημένων Mojodyte τῶν ῥημάτων 
ῥημάτων | τῶν προειρημένων 
] 


τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ran Χριστοῦ" 
ν ἐσχάτῳ pee 
ἔσονται 
«ἐμπαῖκται, 4 
κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν 
ἐπιϑυμίας πορευόμενοι. 


om 


ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται, 
χατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὑτῶν 
ἐπυϑυμίας πορευόμενοι. 


I must now notice some distinctive expressions of the first chapter, 
of which, short as it is, there are several that are repeated in the sec- 


ond and third chapters, and evince them to be the production of the 


same author. The word φϑορά, which occurs in the first chapter, 
meaning moral corruption (1: 4), is found likewise in the second (2: 
19: ἀπά shortly before, 2: 12), in the signification of destruction, εἰς 
ἅλωσιν καὶ φϑορᾶν, and moreover in that of moral corruption, ἐν τῇ 
φϑορᾷ αὑτῶν φϑαρήσονται. The unusual adjective form rayev7, is com- 
mon to both chapters, ταχενὴ ἀπόϑεσις (1: 14), and ταχινὴ ἀπωλεία 
(2: 1). In the first and third we find ἐπάγγελμα instead of adel (he 
(1:4, and 3:13). So κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος (1: 11, 3: 2 and 18). 


Whole phrases : τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσχοντες, Ore... 1: 20, where no 
second, no δεύτερον, follows ; and, in like manner: τοῦτο πιρῦτον γινώσ- 
κοντεὲς, Otho. And, still more striking : διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν 


ὑπομνήσει (1: 13) and διέγείρον ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει (3: 1). 

On the whoie, I not only discover no necessity of separation, but per- 
ceive rather a fast connexion of the different parts, which renders the 
attempt to disunite them impracticable. 


§ 179. 


We find some passages in the earliest fathers of the church, which 
may be regarded as quotations by ‘memory from the second Epistle of 
Peter, although their coincidence is not perfectly literal. Among these 
T rank the passage in the 2d Book | of Theophilus against Autolycus, 
C.9: Oi δὲ του ϑεοῦ ἄνϑρωποι καὶ πνευματοφόρου πνεύματος ἁγίου 
καὶ προφήται γενόμενοι, UM αὐτοῦ τοὺ ϑεοῦ ἐμπνευσϑέντες καὶ σα-- 


᾿ 


644 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


φισϑέντες ἐγένοντο ϑεοδίδακτοι. Comp, 2 Pet. 1:20. The clause, 
Ολόγος αὐτοῦ φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν σικῆήματι συνεχομένῳ (B. Η. 
C. 13), very much resembles Pet. 1: 19. Ὃ λόγος ὡς λύχνος φαίνων ἐν 
αὐγμηρῳ τόπῳ. 

The quotation of Irenzus! is more explicit : “‘quoniam dies Domi- 
ni sicut mille anni—7j yao ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη. True, the sub- 
stance of these words is found elsewhere in the Bible (Ps. 89: 4), but 
under a very different form and application: ὅτε χίλεα ἔτη ἐν 0g ὃϑαλ- 
μοῖς Gov, ὡς ἡ ἡμήρα ἡ χϑὲς, ἥτις διῆλϑε. Only in2 Pet. 8: 8, are 
found exactly as they occur in Trenzus. 

Supposing what can hardly be denied, that this citation is identical 
with the passage in Peter and was derived from it, we may congratu- . 
Jate ourselves that we have a much earlier witness in favor of this Epis- 
tle, viz. Justin Martyr, who had already referred to the same passage.” 
After him comes Clement of Alexandria, who has made use of it fre- 
quently in his works. Let it not be objected, that the clause was prob- 
ably a proverbial expression. It is not so treated by Peter: A.V δὲ 
tovro—let not this important truth escape you, that one day, etc. 

The first, however, who speaks expressly of the 2d Epistle of Peter, 
is Origen; though he observes at the same time that it is disputed.? » 

Eusebius, in like manner, states that this Epistle had not come down 
to his time as a writing of the highest class (viz. those universally ac- 
knowledged), but, as it was found serviceable by many, the same use 
had been made of it as of the other books of the New T'estament.* 

Jerome acquaints us with one of the objections which were urged 
against the Epistle. He says it was denied to be Peter’s because a 
difference in style was observed between it and the Ist Epistle,” an ob- 
servation which is always uncertain, and not to be relied on in critical 
investigations, so long as it rests merely on feeling and taste and is not 
brought out to distinct intellectual perception and referred to princi-_ 
ples of philosophical and particular grammar. If the fathers found no 
weightier difficulty than this, the remarks which we have already made 
will afford ample indemnification for their doubt. 

The most ancient Syriac version does not at present contain the 
Epistle ; but Ephraem cites it, both in his Syriac and Greek works.® 

Descending into the fourth century, we find it treated by the Chris- 
tian fathers generally with the same consideration as other biblical wri- 
tings, and invariably comprised in catalogues of the canonical books. 

Still, the historical evidence in the case will not afford us that satis- 
faction which we like to have on subjects of this nature; and, even if 
we call to our aid the established and immemorial usage according to 
which this Epistle possessed from the remotest period a place in the 
biblical codex, we shall, notwithstanding, find it necessary to resort to 
internal evidence in order to arrive at ἃ definite decision respecting the 
genuineness of this Epistle. 

1 Tren. L. V. Adv. Her. Ὁ. 23. 2 Dial. cum Tryph. c. 81. 
3 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 25. 4 Kuseb. H. KE. III. 8. 

5 Hieronym. Script. Eccles. v. Petrus. 

6 Opp. Syr. ΤΊ IL. p. 342. Opp. Gree. T. I. p. 387, 


ες THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 645 


᾿ς ᾧ 180. 


_ The Epistle of Jude, notwithstanding its brevity, has weighty testi- 

᾿ monies of antiquity in its favor. The Gnostic teachers endeavored to 
make it support their opinions, and, in particular, explained the 8th 
verse as favoring their extravagant theory of morals. ‘The Christian 
father to whom we are indebted for this information mentions by name, 
at the commencement of his treatise on this sect, the works of their own 
from which he derived his knowledge, writing therefore from authentic 
sources.! 

Among the orthodox Greek fathers, Clement of Alexandria cites the 
Epistle under Jude’s name, as the production of a prophetic mind.” 

Origen calls the Epistle a production full of heavenly grace.” In his 

5 book Περί ἀρχῶν, he even inclines to ascribe indubitable authority to the 
work Ascensio Mosis, because he supposed that Jude cites it in his 
Epistle.4 Still, it is manifest from one of his expressions, that many of 
his contemporaries disagreed with him, and entertained some doubt re- 
specting the authority of the Epistle. His pupil Pamphilus, however, 
7 eetiiniable teacher of Eusebius, makes use of it without any scru- 
ple. 

Notwithstanding, Eusebius does not conceal from us that his prede- 
cessors were divided in opinion respecting it, and that it is not to be 
ranked among the universally-acknowledged writings.® 

The case was the same, also, in the Syriac church. Its version, the 
Peschito, does not now contain it; but once, it would seem, the case 
was different ; for Ephraem shows that he was acquainted with it, and 
does not scruple to allow it the authority of a biblical book.’ 

The oldest catalogue among the Latins, the one given by the anony-. 

at Epipham Adv. Her. L. 1. T. If. H. XXVI. πο. 13. Pet. and Ed. Ba- 
sil. p. 45. Βούλονται γὰρ τὴν καὶ αὐτῶν μαρτυρίαν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς 
τοῦ ᾿Ιούδα μᾶλλον εἰς αὐτοὺς δῆϑεν ἐπάγεσϑαι, ἐν τῷ λέγειν, καὶ οἵ μὲν ἐν-- 
ὑπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μιαίνουσι ... . Οὖκ εἶπε δὲ ὃ μακάριος ᾿Ιούδας, ἀδελ-- 
os τοῦ χυρίου, περὶ ἐνυπνιαζομένων ἐν σώμασιν, κ- τ. λ. 


5.1, IIT. Strom. ο 2. p. 431. Sylb. ᾿Επὶ τούτων οἶμαι καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων 
αἵρέσεων προφητικῶς Ἰοίδαν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ εἰρηκέναι. Comp. Peedag. L. 
ΠΤ ΕΒ , 

3 Comment. in Matth. ΧΊΠ. p. 993, ᾿Ιούδας ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὴν ὀλιγό- 

στιχον μὲν, πεπληρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς ἐπουρανίου χάριτος λόγων. 
4 Το Ill. ο. 2. “De quo in Ascensione Moysi, enjus libelli_meminit in 
Epistola sud apostolus Judas, Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans 
de corpore Moysi, ait, a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam extitisse pree- 
varicationis Adz,” etc. 

5 Comment. in Matth. Vol. IL. p. 488. Opp. Orig. Ruci; and Apolog. 
pro Origen. Vol. 1V. p. 23. , 


6 Euseb. Ἡ, E. L. IIE. ο. 25. 


7 Opp. Syr. T. I. p. 186. Hassenecamp’s “ Anmerk. zu Michaelis’ Hin- 
Jeit.” p. 42—44. 


2 
#2 


τε, 


site 


646 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. . 


mous writer in Muratori, expressly mentions this Epistle as an admitted 
biblical book.! 

Tertullian, in speaking of Enoch, refers to the Epistle of Jude, and? 
‘designates its author by the epithet apostle.? 

There were, however, some among the Latins also, at a later and per- 
haps too at an earlier period, who refused to acknowledge this Epistle ; 
but this circumstance did not exert any influence upon the mass of the 
Latins. In the time of Jerome, it was ranked with the other Sacred " 
Scriptures, on account of its antiquity and immemorial use. A ἐν 

The principal objection to which it was subject was, that it referred 
to an apocryphal production, the book of Enoch. For, as on that ac- 
count some considered the book of Enoch and the Ascensio Mosis 9 
to be authoritative scriptural books, others, on the contrary, denied : 
the writer’s apostolical rank and inspiration, because he encumbered : 
his Epistle with apocryphal accounts. This we are told by Didymus of 
Alexandria, and, among the Latins, by Jerome.* 


§ 181. 


Who was this Jude? If James, the brother of our Lord, and James 
the son of Alpheus, the apostle, were one and the same person, so 
likewise were Jude, the brother of our Lord, and the Jude mentioned in 
the list of apostles. But supposing there were two of this name, to 
which Jude does the Epistle belong ? 

Our author calls himself ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου, the brother of James. 
He either does this to designate the family to which he belonged, and 
thereby individualize himself to the reader; or he wished to exalt and 
support his authority by means of his relationship to James, a celebra- 
ted Christian teacher. 

But he does not thereby distinguish his family; for each Jude had a 
brother named James, and consequently the name of the writer’s broth- 
er does not at all enlighten us respecting his family connexions or him- 
self. 

The other reason, then, must be the true one, why he subjoined the 
name of his brother. But relationship to James the apostle could not 
confer upon Jude the apostle any recommendation which he did not al- 
ready possess. We find no mention in the biblical history of any thing 
which rendered him widely known or distinguished him above others; 
we only observe his name by the side of Jude’s in the catalogue of the 
apostles. 

Let us suppose that James, the brother of our Lord, is meant. We 
know that he was honored as the Just and Wise, and that his name was 
noised abroad in many countries. Those who defended and inculcated 
the observances of the law had rendered him celebrated in Galatia and 


» 


1 Τ΄ IIL. Ant. It. p. 854. 

2 De cult. fem. c. 4. “" Eo accedit, quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testi- 
monium possidet.”’ 

3 In Catal. v. Judas. ‘‘ Tamen auctoritatem vetustate et usu meruit, et inter 
Sanctas Scripturas computatur.”’ 


A Didym. apud Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. p. 846. Hieron. in Catal. v- 
ud. : 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 647 


᾿ς 
Achaia, and his fame was extended far and wide in Asia, through the 


eal of the council at Jerusalem, which was occasioned by his in- 


uence. Moreover, he was honored by all Jewish Christians on ac- 
count of the high station which he held as principal teacher at Jerusa- 
lem. The lustre of his name would be reflected upon his brother, 
and the distinction of the former would procure special estimation for the 
latter. In this case Jude might well think it of consequence to con- 
nect his own name with that of his brother, thus at once designating 
and dignifying himself. 

Jude, moreover, does not call himself an apostle ; and yet it was in- 
cumbent upon him to show by what right he undertook to pronounce 
and prescribe on points of Christian doctrine. He calls himself, exact- 
ly as James does, the servant of Jesus Christ,’ /yo00 Χοιστοῦ δοῦλος, 
which appellation must have implied more than that of apostle, or he 
would have called himself an apostle ; for the expression, servant of Je- 
sus Christ, as applicable to all the adherents of Christianity, could not 
procure him any more estimation as a teacher than belonged to the 
most ordinary Christian. If it has such a peculiar sense as to distin- 
guish Jude, it must signify a nearer relation to Jesus than that of 
apostle. 

Clement, therefore, was right in observing, in his Adumbrations, that 
“* Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, one of the sons of Joseph, a 
pious man, although he well knew his relationship to Jesus, yet did not 
call himself his brother ; but said, Jude the servant of Jesus Christ (as 
the Lord) and the brother of James.’’! 


ἣν § 182. 


we must now inquire concerning the heretics against whom Peter 
and Jude wrote their two Epistles. ‘hat they denied our Lord, is the 


principal charge made against them by the two apostles; and yet they 


were numbered among the Christians, and joined in their assemblies 
Jude, v. 0¥2, By this denial, therefore, we are not to understand that 
they had entirely renounced Christ and his followers ; but that, in liter- 
al accordance with the charges made against them, they merely would 
not acknowledge Jesus as δεσπότην: τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς dson0- 
τὴν ἀονούμενον (2 Pet. 2:1), καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον 
ἡμῶν ησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (Jude, v. 4) i. 6. they either denied 
that he was the Creator of the world, or that he was its governor and 
judge, or both together, as some had before denied that Jesus was the 
Christ, the Son of God: ἀρνούμενοι Ore ᾿ἰησοῦς ἐστιν 0 Χριστὸς, x. 
τ. Δ. It is clear that they disputed his government of the world and 
his office as judge, παρουσίαν (2 Pet. 3: 4—12), on which account they 
are even referred to the book of Enoch, which had long ago declared 
his judicial power (Jude, 14 seq.). 
They had, moreover, circulated very erroneous ideas in regard to spir- 
itual beings, and such as were inconsistent with their exalted character. 


1 “ Judas, qui Catholicam scripsit Epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph, extans val- 
de religiosus, cum sciret prdfingaitatem Domini, non tamen dixit, se ipsum fra- 
trem ejus esse: sed quid dixit? Judas,servus Jesu Christi, utpote Domini, fra- 
ter autem Jacobi.’’ Opp. Clem. T. II. p. 1007. Ed. Venet. 


“ft 
3 


, * 
648 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


The names by which these spirits are here designated are δόξαν and 
πυριότητες. The latter expression is sometimes used by Paul, in” 
“speaking of the different orders of spirits as classified by the theurgical — 
teachers of Asia Minor (Eph. 1: 21. Col. 1: 16). ᾽ 

However great may have been their theoretical errors, they were 
trifling in comparison with the unnatural profligacy of their conduct. 
They had, besides, a reckless covetousness, to which nothing was too ἦν 
dear or too sacred to be sacrificed. " 

But it will be perceived that the description of these heretics and her- ne 
esies is not by any means so definite as to enable us to distinguish at Ἃ 
once the particular class to which it refers. Apparently their system ‘ 
was similar to that theurgical and magian philosophy, which we have de- 
scribed above, and which was distinguished for its pneumatological spec- 
ulations about angels and spiritual beings and the inferences which it 
deduced from them. 

We shall not probably meet with much opposition so long as we confine 
ourselves to so general a position as this. Some, however, suppose that 
reference is had to the sect of the Nicolaitans, which was already ina ; 
flourishing condition ; and their opinion ,is neither improbable nor in- 
compatible with the expressions of the two apostles, so far as we have 
any certain knowledge concerning this sect. But this investigation, if . 4 
pursued with critical assiduity, would lead to much prolixity and to many 
accessory inquiries which we have not sufficient materials to discuss 
properly, and for which, moreover, this is not the proper place.! 4 


§ 183. . * * 
The singular circumstance, that the Epistle of Jude allows argumen- 
tative authority to the book of Enoch, has led both the ancients and the 
moderns to very erroneous opinions and conclusions, sometimes to the 
prejudice of the Epistle and sometimes in favor of the book of Enoch. af 
This state of things has resulted in part respecting this Epistle, and 
wholly in respect to the second of Peter, from the fact thatthe dispute z 


Ee ae Le 
1 ‘The reasons at present urged by those who fix on the Nicolaitans are, I be- 
lieve, the following. In the Apocalypse John describes the Nicolaitans nearly 
as these heretics are represented, using the same comparison and making the 
same charges: Men that practise the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to en- 
snare thie children of Israel, so that they ate of idolatrous sacrifices and commit- 
ted fornication (Rev. 2: 14. Jud. 11. 2 Pet. 2: 15). In derivation, too, beds cor- 
responds to Νικόλαος. Moreover, they certainly denied that our Lord was thecre- 
ator and governor of the world: ““ Alteruin quidem fabricatorem, alium autem 
patrem Domini . . . . et eam conditionem, que est secundum nos, non a primo 
Deo factam, sed a virtute aliquaé valde deorsum subjecta” (Iren. L. III. e¢. 11.) 
Now, if all corporeal and material existence had its origin from the creator of 
the world, a very imperfect and gross spirit, it naturally follows that it will not 
receive from the highest spirit, or Jesus,a corporeal resurrection to’a general 
judgment. In regard to the spiritual world they did in truth teach such absur- 
dities that one cannot help saying of {π8π|--- δόξας Blaogzjuovo-—for they sup- 
posed that there were ‘ @ones quosdam turpitudinis natos, et complexus, et per- 
mixtiones execrabiles et obscenas.”’ (Tertull. in append. ad Lib. De Prescrip. c. 
46). The statements of the ancients, too,in regard to their profligacy and their 
detestable course of life are so consonant τ ΤΩ other and with the charges 
of τὰς apostles, that the two Epistles may be pertinently considered as referring ; 
to them, 


THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 649 


of the archangel with Satan concerning the body of Moses is cited in 
both by way of example and reproof. The more impartial judges in 
this case regarded these two arguments or specimens of erudition as 
mere fables, which they really are, and consequently they usually deci- 
ded against the Epistles 

The book of “noch was, in fact, full of Judzo-theurgical and Magian 
reveries, as was natural from the character of the man who is supposed 
to have composed it. According to Eupolemus, he was the inventor of 
astrology, or rather a pupil of the angels in this science, who initiated 
him into its mysteries.' He once went on a mission to the angels,” on 
which occasion he probably enjoyed their instruction. But, not content 
with knowing the course of the planets, the position of the heavenly 
bodies, and their signification, he likewise, as is asserted by the Jews 
and other oriental people, became acquainted with the art of divina- 
tion, with written signs, with offerings, purifications, lustrations, and 
other things of the kind, by instruction from celestial beings, and com- 
municated them to men.” 

From these notions of him, entertained by Jews, Arabians and oth- 
ers, we may readily judge to what species of literature his writings be- 
longed. The fragments of them which we find in the fathers will not 
belie our judgment. 

The larger fragments in Syncellus acquaint us with the names of 
the principal angels,and concerning other spirits and genii and their va- 
rious occupations.’ - The earlier intimations and notices respecting the 
contents of this work point to the same subjects. ‘Tertullian says: It 
has furnished us a classification of spiritual beings. In another place 
he has extracted from it warnings against the seductions of wicked de- 
mons and reprobate spirits.- According to the book of Enoch, it was 
the angels that brought to light the secret virtue of plants, the abstruse 
operations of nature, and the riches of the earth, viz. its precious met- 
als, and endued mankind with knowledge of this description.? It was 
they, we are assured by Clement of Alexandria on the authority of the 
book of Enoch, who brought down to us the science of the stars, the 
art of divination, and other useful arts.® 

All the more ancient intimations in regard to this book or its sup- 
posed author likewise lead us to the same conclusion. Such was the 
idea which prevailed respecting the work and the character of the wri- 
ter.’ The book probably contained all the knowledge of the stars 


1 Apud Euseb. De Prmp. Evang. L. IX. ¢. 17. p. 419. Ed. Vigeri. 
2 Trenens, L. 1V. Adv. Her. c. 16. 
3 Abulpharagii Hist. Dynast. I. p. 9,10. Arabie text. A great deal on this 


subject has been collected by Kircher in hie “ Obelisens Pamphilius” L, 1 Ὁ 
3. Wetstein on Jud. 14. in his N. T, 


4 Syneelli Chronogr. p. 11 seq. 24 seq. Edit. Goar.—Grabe, Spic. Patr. T. I. 
p. 347 seq. 

5 Teriull. De Habita mulier. e. 3. De Idololat. ¢. 4 and 15. De cultu feeminar. 
ς. 10. 

6 Ex Script. Prophetar. ae ce. LIII. p. 1002. Ed. Ven. 

7 Grabe, Spicileg. S.S. P. P. ἴα. I. p. 344—358.—Fabric. Cod. Apoer. V. 
Test. P. I. p. 160—224. P. ΤΙ. Ὁ Sealiger ad Euseb. Chronic. p. 244 seq 
Concerning an Ethiopic Book of Enoch, see Michaelis’ Orient. Biblioth. Thl. é. 
p. 224 seq. 

82 


650 THE APOCALYPSE. ’ 


and their courses which was acquired in the time of Adam and Seth, 
and which, as we are informed by Josephus (Antiqg. L. I. ο. 2.n. Sheds 
was engraven by Seth upon two monuments, one of stone and the othér 
of brick, that they might survive the two great devastations of the 
earth which were foretold by Adam, one of which was to be effected 
by water and the other by fire. The whole character of the book jus- 
tifies this supposition. The second desolation by fire yet awaits the 
world. (See 2 Pet. 3: 10—13.) 

So too, whether the dispute between Michael and the devil about the 
body of Moses, which the ancients read in the book ἀνάβασις Mo- 
σέως, arose from the claim set up by the evil spirit to the body,! or in 
some other way, it is sufficient that the idea of a contest between good 
and evil spirits is at the foundation of it, and points us, in this case like- 
wise, to theurgical opinions and teachers. 

And now, why did the apostles cite these books, these examples and 
proofs? Naturally, in order to make those against whom they wrote 
sensible of their errors and criminality. Arguments and confutation 
drawn from the genuine sacred scriptures would have been of no avail 
against them, for these they evaded, as Peter complains expressly (2 Pet. 
3: 16), by their perversions and forced interpretations, τὰς yoaqas 
στρεβλοῦσιν. Thus, there was no surer means of influencing them, 
than those writings which they valued as the sources of their peculiar 
views and tenets. Nothing could more effectually reduce them to si- 
lence and shame them in the-eyes of their contemporaries, than to be 
confuted by means of the very arguments on which they relied. This 
remark will not only exculpate the apostles, but convince us that in such 
a situation, with such antagonists, they could have done nothing more 
suitable or considerate than the very thing for which some have depre- 
ciated and disputed their two Epistles. ' 


¥ 
SHE APOCALYPSE. OF .ST. 3.0. HON. 


§ 184. 


The writer calls himself John, and states the isle of Patmos to have 
been the place where these revelations were madeto him. We will 
not long defer the inquiry, what John the testimony of antiquity des- 
ignates as the author. But first, a few words only concerning the 
place where these visions were shown to him. For a question has been 
started, whether, in a completely poetical work like this, the author’s | 
statement of the place which was the scene of his visions, can claim a 
historicai acceptation ? 

The case is not unique; and, if we may judge from other examples 
in antiquity, we can readily answer the inquiry. No one has ever 
deemed untrue what Hesiod relates, in his poem of Works and Days 
(v. 630—638), of his birth-place and hisremoval to Beotia. Are we to 


1 Fabric. Cod. Apoc. V. Τ'. Ρ. I. p. 402 and 840—848.—Scholia in Ep. Jud. p. 
238, 239. Ed. Noy. Test. C. F. Matihai. 


Z 


THE APOCALYPSE. 651 


regard what Ovid says of his banishment to Tomos, what Phedrus, the 
fabulist, and Martial, the epigrammatist, tell us of the circumstances of 
their lives, as mere fiction, because it is stated in poetry? ‘To pass 
from profane to sacred writings, have we any doubt respecting the ac- 
count of Ezekiel in the introduction to his prophecies : It came to pass 
in the thirtieth year, when I was by the river Chebar, etc. Do we 
refuse to admit the statements concerning the circumstances of his life, 
which Jeremiah has interspersed here and there in his prophecies? If, 
now, we credit the removal of Hesiod, the transportation of Ezekiel to 
the river Chebar, and Ovid’s banishment, why should we not credit the 
banishment of John? . 

Supposing it had been the writer’s intention to exercise the license of 
poetry in this point, what reason can be assigned, why in his poetical 
revery he should transport himself to a barren rock almost unnoticed by 
the ancients, which first came into repute on account of the Apoca- 
lypse?. Why did he not select a picturesque spot for his raptures? or 
one famed for former revelations, and consecrated by some momentous 
occurrence? Had this been the case, there would have been reason 
for the question, what is the respective share of poetry and truth in 
the representation? In examining his words, we find nothing but plain, 
unequivocal prose : I John, who also am your brother and companion in 
tribulation, and in the kingdom and _ patience of Jesus Christ, was in 
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimo- 
ny of Jesus Christ.” This he says before any elevated state of mind is 
mentioned. It is not till after this declaration that he says: ἐγενόμην 
ἐν πινεύματε, I was in the spirit, etc. (1:10). The contrary, therefore, 
is clear from every point of view; and we need not any longer delay the 
inquiry, what Jobn was the author. 

Weare told that some, who had themselves seen John the Evangelist, 
stated, in regard to a doubtful reading in the Apocalypse (viz. the num- 
ber of the beast, 13: 18}, that the number six hundred and sixty-six was 
to be read; and that they were supported on this point by Mss. which 
even in the second century were accounted ancient! We will pass by 
the fact that, as appears from this account, the superscriptions of an- 
cientsMss. ascribed the book to John. Itis weighty evidence, however, 
if contemporaries ascribe a production to acertain man; and still more 
so, if this is done by the acquaintances of a writer, and they are even 
able to state, as to a remarkable passage in which copies differ, what 
the author really wrote. 

Nor could any thing be objected against the evidence, had not he 
through whom the account has come to us given himself up too care- 
lessly in a like case to the representations of witnesses unworthy of reli- 
ance. There were some of the Gnostic sect, who asserted that our Lord, 
afier living thirty years in obscurity, taught but a single year, and then 
died. He very properly objected to this statement, that we find in the 


1 “ Omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoe posito, 
et testimonium perhibentibus his, qui facie ad, faciem Joannem viderunt, καὶ 
μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ᾽ byw τὸν Ιωάννην ἑωρακότων . . . « quo- 
niam numerus nominis bestie, secundum Grecorum computationem, per litte- 
ras, que in eo sunt, sexcentos habet et sexaginta sex.” (Iren, L. V. Adv. Her. c. , 


30.—Euseb. H. E. L. IV. ο. 24.) 


‘652 THE APOCALYPSE. 


Gospel three passovers during his ministry after his baptism, which cer- 
tainly make more than one year. But he proceeds to say, that Jesus 
was more than thirty years old—that he was even forty or fifty—refer- 
ring, not merely in behalf of the first statement, but in behalf of the 
highest number of years, to the testimony of such as had lived in the 
time of John, and been intimately acquainted with him.' 

He probably relied too much in this case upon Papias, who wrote 
down indiscriminately al] that he heard from men of the time of the 
apostles, whether true or false, and who deserved but a very circum- 
spect reliance as to such points. 

Next in order to the contemporaries of the apostles comes Papias 
himself. His writings have all perished, with the exception of a few 
fragments; but commentators, particularly Andrew of Cappadocia, 
who had in his possession many documents and writings on the subject 
of the Apocalypse which are now lost, reckon him among the explicit 
witnesses in its favor.” 

It is true, it has been attempted to cast suspicion on the statement of 
the Cappadocian Bishop, on the ground that he also numbers Gregory 
Theologus among the friends of the Apocalypse, while no reason for so 
doing appears in Gregory’s works. But the hastiness of this charge 
has been shown in such a manner,’ that it can occasion no further 
difficulty. Moreover, no one, who is aware how much Ireneus relied 
upon Papias, will easily be persuaded that the former would have pro- 
nounced with so much confidence in regard to this book, had the latter 
been of a different opinion. 

We have an illustrious voucher for the Apocalypse in Justin Martyr, 
who ascribes it to John, one of the Apostles of our Lord.* Next comes 
Theophilus of Antioch, who, particularly in his book against Iermoge- 
nes, drew many of his arguments from it.° 

Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches to which a let- 
ter with special admonitions is addressed in the Apocalypse, composed a 
work exclusively upon this book. Eusebius mentions his literary pro- 
ductionsas follows: Meditwrog καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀπο- 
καλύϊμεως “Πωάννου (L. ΤΥ. ὁ. 90. Η. Ε..). Semler endeavors to persuade 
us from these words, that the books concerning the devil and the Apoc- 
alypse were one and the same, and then draws such inferences as his 


' Trenceus, L. If. Adv. Heer, ς. 22.n. ὅ. Πάντες οἵἱπρεσβύτεροι μαρτυ-- 
᾿ ροῦσιν, οἵ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν Τωάννῃ, τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαϑητῇ συμβεβληχότες, παρ- 
αδεδωχέναι ταῦτα ᾿Τωάννην. 

2 περὶ μέντοι τοῦ ϑεοπνεύστου τῆς βίβλου περιττὸν μηκχύνειν τὸν λόγον 
ἡγούμεϑα, τῶν “μακαρίων, Τρηγορίου φημὶ, τοῦ Θεολόγου, καὶ Κυρίλλου, 
προσέτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων, Παππίου, Εἰρηναίου, ΜΙεϑοδίου, καὶ Ἱππολί-- 
του ταύτῃ προσμαρτυρούντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον. Andr. Prol.in Apoc. inter Opp. 
Chrysost. in N. T. Tom. If. Frontodue. Fraucof. p, 175). 

3 Christ. Fried. Schmid, “Ob die Offenb. Joh. ein godttliches Buch 
ist?” Leipsic, 1777, p. 352, and Hist. Canon. L. IT. p. 1. Sect. 4. § 166. 

4 Dial. cum Tryph. c. LXXXI. p. 308. Steph. "Larrys, εἷς τῶν ἀποσ- 
τόλων Χριστοῖ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ. 


> Euseb. H. E. L. IV. ς. 94. 


THE APOCALYPSE. 653 


position affords him. But, not to mention that, if Melito had disputed 
the book, Eusebius would not have omitted to notice so important a 
circumstance, Melito himself calls it the Apocalypse of John. Je- 
rome, however, in his Literary History (voc. Melito), explicitly distin- 
guishes two works, “ De diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi Joannis 
librum unum.” 

At the close of the second and beginning of the third century, we 
mect with Apollonius, a learned Presbyter of the church at Ephesus, 
who testifies in favor of the Apocalypse.’ He lived in the very place 
whence a denial must have first proceeded, had the attempt been made 
to ascribe to the apostle a work which improperly bore his authoritative 
name. Ephesus boasted the residence and instruction of this estima- 
ble father ; it contained his ashes, and his pupils after him were mem- 
bers of the Presbyterium. Moreover, the Apocalypse contains a special 
letter to this church, which gave it a peculiar interest in the book, and 
may be regarded as a dedication. 

At the close of the third century and commencement of the fourth, 
Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, and subsequently of Tyre, ap- 
pears asa witness. We are still in possession of extracts from his 
commentaries on the Apocalypse, in the works of Andrew of Cappado- 
cia. Photius has given us sketches of some of his works, in which he 
sometimes expressly referred to the Apocalpyse of St. John.? 

In the fourth century Ephraem the Syrian is specially worthy of no- 
tice among the Asiatics, as ascribing the Apocalypse to John, and 
moreover to John Theologus.® 

From this time forth, however, we observe a different opinion among 
the bishops of Asia, the causes and occasions of which must be eluci- 
dated by other events, to which we shall hereafter direct our attention. 

We will now leave this quarter of the world, and turn to Africa, there 
to trace the fortunes of the Apocalypse. [158 first reception here was not 
less favorable than in Asia. Clement of Alexandria regarded its dec- 
larations as important and gracious communications of apostolic opin- 


-ions, and itself as a work of John.4 


Further west in Africa, ‘Uertullian speaks with decided confidence 
in its favor: Inquire, says he, through the whole series of bishops, up to 
John himself, and each, without exception, declares John to have been 
its author.® 


; 1 Euseh. H. Εἰ. L. V. ο. 18. ἹΚέχρηται δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου 
«Ἱποχαλύψεως, καὶ νεκρὸν δὲ δυνάμεν θείᾳ πρὸς αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐν τῇ ᾿Εφέσῳ 
ἐγηγέρϑαι ἱστορεῖ. ... 

5. Photius, Cod. 234. p. 489, Heschel. Kut 6 μακάριος ᾿Ιωάννης .. . « 
es c , ὸ ‘ ‘ > ~ Ἴ < 
Ἔδωκεν ἡ ϑάλασση τοὺς νεχυοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ. .. κ᾿ τ. 2. Cod. 237. p. 508. 
«“ ‘ ἊΝ a of eee ’ , c ayes ‘ 3 
Ow τὰ πλεῖστα τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Τωάντου Αποκχαλύψεως ῥητὰ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλεσίαν 
καὶ τὰς παρϑενευούσας ψυχὰς ἀνάγει. 

3 Opp. Syr. T. IL. p. 332. T. III. p. 636. Opp. Greec. T. II. p. 252. 
Καϑὼς καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης 6 ϑεόλογος ἐχήρυξε. Comp. T. UI. p. 52. Hassen- 
camp’s Aumerk, zu Michaelis Einleit. p. 9, 13. ᾿ 

4 To περίοπτον τῆς ἀποστολικῆς φωνῆς αἰνίττεσϑαι χάριτος. Padag. ἴ. 
If. c. 12. Strom. L. VI. ο. 13. alibi. 


5 1. IV. Adv. Marcion, ¢. 5. “Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. 


654 THE APOCALYPSE. 


Origen regarded it as a work of John the Evangelist, and, although 
in speaking of the second and third of his Epistles, and of the other 
Catholic Epistles (e. g. that of Jude, which [Origen considered ca- 
nonical), he has always mentioned the doubts entertained respecting 
them, he does not seem to have known that the Apocalypse was at all 
disputed.! 

It was about this time that Nepos, Bishop of the Arsinoitic Prefecture, 
assailed the allegorical interpretations of the Bible, with particular ref- 
erence to the Apocalypse, from the literal exposition of which he 
thought he could prove the doctrine of a Millenium, which he held. 
The Apocalypse, therefore, was not then numbered among the writings 
whose uncertain authority rendered them unsuitable to establish a doc- 
trinal point. He even based his positions on this in particular.” 

Till now all was favorable to the Apocalypse; but the opinion of 
Nepos excited attention, and his work (“Ldsyyos- ἀλληγοριστῶν) gain- 
ed adherents, who became so numerous that several churches were di- 
vided into two parties. On the death of Nepos a person named Kora- 
cion adopted his tenets, and vigorously maintained the thousand years’ 
reign. 

When the disagreement came to a high pitch of violence, Dionysius 
occupied the Alexandrian see. He brought about a Colloquium, 
which, unlike most others, proved satisfactory to all parties. He gave 
an account of this in a work which he entitled, I/fegi ἐπιαγγελεών, On 
the promises, and in which he attempted to depreciate the Apocalypse, 
the main support of the doctrine of Nepos. He did this, however, 
with much moderation, that he might not offend those who had so read- 
ily agreed to a compromise. : 

It was amidst these disputes concerning the Millenium, that the first 
explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apocalypse occurred ; and 
it is related by Eusebius in Dionysius’ own words, taken from his 
book On the Promises. When the head of the Alexandrian church 
enters into a critical investigation respecting the Apocalypse, we have 
a right to expectsomething unusually thorough upon the subject. 

Dionysius refers first to earlier teachers, tevég μὲν οὖν τῶν πρὸ ἡς- 
μων, who had rejected the Apocalypse. ‘‘ They maintained,” he says, 
“that the title was deceptive ; that it was not written by an apostle, nor 
even by any pious man, but by Cerinthus. They went through it chap- 
ter by chapter, in order to prove that it was a work without sense or 
connexion, a nobody-knew-what behind a thick veil of unintelligibili- 
ty. Cerinthus, they said, composed it, in order to procure his heresies 


Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad 
originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem. 


' Euseb, H. E. L. VI. c. 25. Particular passages from Origen may be 
found in Schmid’s “Ob die Offenb. Johan. ein géttlich Buch sey.” p. 
257—275. 3 


7 ~ r ~ 3 ε 
5. 4όξας γοῦν οὗτος ἐκ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν κρατύνειν ὕπόλ-- 
” 2 ~ , ‘ 
ἡψιν ἕλεγχον ἀλληγοριστῶν, λόγον twa περὶ τούτου συντάξας, ἐπέγραψεν. 


Euseb, H. E. L. VII. c. 24. 


THE APOCALYPSE. 655 


consequence by an apostolic name ; for it teaches, like him, an earthly 
reign of Christ in the midst of banqueting and sensual pleasures.” 

Now, who were these earlier teachers? | He does not make use of 
the expression ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες, or οἱ an ἀνέκαϑεν πρεσβύτεροι, the 
ancients, men in the beginning, from the earliest times, but merely says: 
some of our predecessors, τινὲς τῶν TOO ἡμῶν. These words, in their 
proper and customary sense, do not denote any great antiquity, and re- 
fer no further back than to the preceding generation. The circum- 
stance, that Origen mentions no opposition to this book, which he has 
never forgotten to notice in regard to anyof the disputed books, and 
the confidence with which Nepos based his favorite tenet upon it, will 
not permit us to suppose any other adversaries than those raised up 
against it by Nepos, in the heat of controversy respecting the Mil- 
lennium. 

Moreover, it is worthy of attention how they themselves represented the 
status questionis, ‘They did not dispute the antiquity of the book, but 
rather admitted that it belonged to the times of the apostles, and ascrib- 
ed it to an author who was contemporary with John. In their view, 
the only question was: Was this book written by John, the apostle, or 
by his adversary Cerinthus, the heretic 7 

They adopted the latter position, and expected to prove it from the 
similarity between the opinions of Cerinthus and those expressed in the 
Apocalypse. He imagined,in his sensual way of thinking, said they, 
that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth, in which men would 
enjoy themselves in banqueting, revelling, and other gross pleasures— 
as is taught in the Apocalypse. 

They gave tothe Apocalypse, it seems, that anti-allegorical sense and 
literal interpretation, which was affixed to it by Nepos ; a gross, material 
signification.! When, therefore, they met with an opponent who dis- 
carded the harsh literal interpretation of the book, and proposed an al- 
legorical exposition, all their arguments were rendered null, and the 
whole parallel between the doctrine of Cerinthus and that of the Apo- 
calypse was destroyed. 

Thus the status questionis was of such a nature, that there could be 
no controversy except with Nepotians and their ‘hypotheses. Hence 
we may easily infer, who were the τινὲς πρὸ ἡμῶν, the predecessors to 
whom Dionysius appeals, and to what period they belonged. 

The manner, too, in which they supported their position, is worthy of 
consideration. They did not say that they were informed by contem- 
poraries of the apostles, that John did not compose the Apocalypse, that 
it was written by someone else; or that they had trust-worthy accounts 
from well-informed men, according to which this book did not appear 
till after the time of John, and appeared in this or that place. No: 
these were not the arguments they employed ; but all that they adduced 
was drawn from the book itself. They went through it chwpter by 
chapter, in order to show that it was without intelligibility or connexion, 
absolute nonsense enveloped in mysterious obscurity, etc. 

That which they seem to have put forward as an ancient historical 


1 ᾿Ιουδαϊκότερόν 12s TWO χιλιάδα ἐτῶν τρυφῆς σωματικῆς ἐπὲ ξηρᾶς 
ταύτης ἔσεσϑαι ὑποτυιϑέμενος (Euseb. Η. E. VII. 24). 


» 


656 φ THE APOCALYPSE. 


- statement, edna teva, wg ἐκ τῆς παραδόσεως (Euseb. IIL. 28), viz. that 
Cerinthus taught thus, is in fact not even compatible with his system. 
For, that God or Christ should restore the material creation of the Demi- 
ourgos and recall into existence the unsuccessful work of an imperfect 
/Eon, is not io be supposed ; especially as the work itself, unworthy of any 
nobler spirit, was assigned to the lowest of the heavenly ratures. As 
little is it tobe supposed, that the purest and most exalted spirit, Christ, 
who was incapable of earthly affections, sufferings, or joys, would com- 
mence a reign on this earth, establish his court here, and appoint dan- 
ces and sensual diversions. 

There is but one possible way of reconciling such a tenet with his 
opinions; and that is, according to a recent proposition, to suppose 
that Cerinthus had two doctrinal systems, one which he maintained 
while he lived and taught merely as a Jewish Christian, and a second 
which he formed upon becoming a Gnostic.! _ 

In this case, also, Caius the Presbyter might be correct in saying: 
“€ Cerinthus, likewise, who in what he terms revelations presents us fa- 
bles concerning wonderful visions shown him by angels, as if they were 
written by a great apostle, teaches, that after the resurrection Christ is 
to reign upon earth, and that under the new constitution mankind will 
give themselves up to enjoyment and diversions at Jerusalem, and, like 
an enemy of the Holy Scriptures, teaches, with a deceitful intention, 
that the space of a thousand years will be spent in marriage festivities.” 

But, whatever be the fact, we must here drop this secondary inquiry, 
particularly as, in another connexion, we shall say something respecting 
the passage of Caius in that point of view in which it is of special in- 
terest. 

It is sufficient that the predecessors of Dionysius were not able to 
bring the slightest historical evidence against the Apocalypse, their 
whole aim having been to render it suspicious on the score of its con- 
tents, in explaining which they made greater mistakes than their con- 
temporaries, who were not themselves very happy in their exposition of 
_them. And if, as they supposed, the choice as to the author lay only 
between John and Cerinthus, the choice they made is even ludicrous. 

Dionysius himself did not make much account of their critical and 
exegetical acumen, but proposed a conjecture, on which he endeavored 
to confer probability from internal grounds. ‘There lived at Ephesus, 
in the days of the apostles, a Presbyter named John, of whom Papias 
sometimes speaks in his writings; and this man Dionysius supposed to 
be the author. 

But as his predecessors had not been able to establish their opinion 
in Africa, so neither could he establish his. Cyprian regarded the 
Apocalypse as a divina scriptura, scriptura sancta, in which God or Je- 
sus Christ spoke to man.’ As little could Lactantius and Augustine, 
and other fathers of the Latino-African church, be persuaded otherwise. _ 
‘The Egyptians themselves, as for instance Athanasius, the most cele- 


1 A. E. Gottl.. Paulus, Comment. Theol. Hist. Cerinthi illustrature. Jone, 
1795. Hist. Cerinth, Pars. prior, ὃ 17 seq. 


2 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 28. 


3 Ep. LVI. Ad Thibarit. p. 218. Ep. LXIII. ad Cecil. p. 256. De hab. virg. 
p. 216, 217. Ed. juxta Baluzium Veneta, 1758. ᾿ 


THE APOCALYPSE. _ 657 


brated of the successors of Dionysius, and Marcus, the monk, insisted 
on John the apostle. 

Such was the case in Africa. The Asiatics, however, showed more 
favor to the supposition of Dionysius, and nearly all the bishops of 
the fourth century seem to have been inclined to adopt it. Cyril of 
Jerusalem does not mention the Apocalypse in his catalogue of the 
canonical books, and does not cite it once throughout his works. Greg- 
ory Nazianzen, surnamed Theologus, admits its authority in doctrinal 
matters, and cites it; but in his metrical catalogue of the canonical 
books, in which he was obliged to present the general opinion, he does 
not mention it at all. Basil of Cappadocia and Epiphanius of Cyprus 
regarded it as a genuine production of the apostle John; but Amphilo- 
chius of Iconium candidly admits that some respected the Apocalypse 
as divine and others rejected it. 

The opinion of the Asiatics is given us by Eusebius in his Canon, 
respecting which we have spoken in the proper place. He says that 
some assigned it to the first and some to the third class. Now in the 
latter he ranked such writings as were not indeed of apostolic origin, 
but were the productions of pious men and orthodoz teachers. Among 
these, then, some numbered the Apocalypse. They ascribed it neither 
to the apostle nor to Cerinthus, but chose the middle path marked out 
by Dionysius. 

But, besides the fathers of the fourth century, we are told of yet ear- 
lier opponents of the Apocalypse in Asia, viz. the sect of the Alogians, 
respecting whom the Jess men knew, the more they have written. 
Epiphanius enriched the natural history of the heretics with a new spe- 
cies, which he termed Alogians. Perhaps the Cyprian bishop took of- 
fence at the anti-apocalyptic sentiments of his neighbors and colleagues 
on the continent, and wished to vex them as much as possible. 

However this may be, he invented an heretical denomination, under 
which he classed those who opposed either John’s Gospel with its Log- 
os, or his Apocalypse, or both together. There were, it is true, many 
such, who rejected one or the other, or both, viz. Cerinthus, the Naza- 

‘renes, the Ebionites, Cerdo, Marcion,and others. Shortly before, he 
even ranks among these Theodotus, who certainly did not merit the 
place, with reference to the Gospel, though he may with reference to 
the Apocalypse. But all these, as well as others, whom he might have 
added, bore other heretical designations, and their Alogian tenets were 
only a secondary matter, sometmies more and sometimes less intimately 
connected with their system. 

On this account, all that he says is indefinite; for he made a leading 
characteristic of an accidental and unimportant trait, and on the 
strength of it united individuals of the most dissonant opinions. He 
might with equal reason have spoken of the heresy of the Antilukians, 
because many rejected the Gospel of Luke, or his Acts of the Apostles, 
or both. Of this heresy therefore, we find in Epiphanius neither a begin- 
ning nor an end, no occasion, original locality, leaders or branches. 
Wheresoever he speaks of it, it is in general terms, and as to its history 
he only tells us that there were Alogians formerly in Thyatira. These 
did not show due deference to the Apocalypse ; he does not complain 
of them in respect to the Gospel. He gives no information as to their 

83 


658 _ THE APOCALYPSE. 
origin, rise, connexion etc., but contents himself with merely stating 
the time when they disappeared in that city. 

“When these,” says he, ‘‘ and the Cataphrygians had there set up 
their standard . . . they drew the whole city into their heresy : and those 
who deny the Apocaiypse have themselves confirmed the warning (of 
the Apocalypse) in regard to those times. But now,” he proceeds, “ at 
the present moment, after the lapse of an hundred and twelve years, ἃ 
church exists there; it is increasing, and others have already arisen. 
But then the whole church was lost in the sect of the Cataphrygians.’”? 

He thus narrates the extinction of this heresy at Thyatira, one hun- 
dred and twelve years after which he wrote his heresiological work. It 
was written, however, under Valentinian the First, in the twelfth year 
of his reign, i. 6. in 375 or 376 A. Ὁ. Now, if this heresy ceased an 
hundred and twelve years before, its extinction occurred in the year 
263, near the time when Dionysius brought about the compromise be- 
tween the Nepotians and Antiapokalyptians in Egypt. 

One may certainly presuine from this coincidence of events, that the 
Alogians of Thyatira had a connexion and mutual understanding with 
the Egpytians, who at this period yielded to an amicable accommodation. 

If what Epiphanius says of this sect in the introduction to his work, 
viz. that they ascribed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus relates to the Asiatic 
Alogians (and he says nothing in regard to Africa), this agreement in 
an absurdity argues any thing rather than mutual independence. 

The arguments, too, which they drew from the book itself, its obseu- 
rity, and impenetrable contents, τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει βαϑέως καὶ; 
σκοτεινώς εἰρημένα, are precisely those which were used for the same 
purpose by the Africans. 

It is moreover clear, from all the counter-arguments of Epiphanius 
and all their own arguments which he notices, that the dispute was not 
based upon historical evidence, but upon the different views which 
each party entertained in regard to the book ; and that their reasonings 
ought to weigh against the testimony of the ancients only on the suppo- 
sition that they are perfectly correct and irrefragable. 

Such was the fortune of the Apocalypse in these two quarters of the 
globe. Let us now turn our eyes to Europe, to observe its reception : 
and success there. Very few of the European Greeks in the early j 
ages did much for Christianity, or gained an honorable remembrance . 
for themselves, by their works; and the writings of these few, ase. g. 
those of the excellent Dionysius of Corinth, have not escaped the rava- 
ges of time. We therefore seek in vain for any information on this © 
topic from them, and must turn to the western writers, from whom we 
will now glean what we can. 

One of the oldest monuments of the Roman church is the Shepherd 
of Hermas, the first part of which is occupeid with visions, the second 
with precepts of morality, and the third with similitades. The plan of 


ΟἹ Epiph. Her. LI. p. 198. Ed. Basil. There is another still more obscure de- 
signation of time in regard to the origin of the Montanists,"Os ἦν χρόνος μετὰ 
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀνάληψιν ἐπὶ ἐννενήκοντα καὶ Toro ἔτεσιν ὡς μελλούσης τῆς ἐκεῖσε 
ἐκκλησίας πλανᾶσϑαι καὶ χωνεΐεσϑαι ἐν τῇ κατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσει (I. 6.) which 
will not aid us here at all, as it relates exclusively to the Montanists. 


THE APOCALYPSE. 659 


the first and last parts is very similar to the Apocalypse ; so much so, 
that in particular places they might easily be considered an imitation of 
it. Itis well known what arguments for the genuineness of ancient 
works are drawn by profane philology from imitations, and we should 
derive the same advantage in this case, if this observation were sus- 
tained as fully as it might be by an impartial comparison of these two 
writings. Dismembered figures, ornaments of style, and similarities in 
expression, which, from their visible agreement with the Apocalypse 
may be considered as having sprung from an acquaintance with it, have 
been already collected by Lardner. They may be found, too, in a very 
useful manual upon this subject.! 

In the seventeenth, or, as some critics contend that we should read, 
in the seventh yearof Marcus Aurelius, the Christians in Gaul, we are 
told by Eusebius, were cruelly persecuted. In particular, the churches 
at Lyons and Vienna had even seen some of their number acquire the 
glory of martyrdom. The two churches communicated the distresses 
they experienced, and their joy at the steadfast faith of their members, in 
a letter to all the churches of Phrygia and Asia. A large part of this 
letter is presented by Eusebius in his history. In it one of the martyrs 
is commended in the words of the Apocalypse (14: 4); and the pas- 
sage 22: LI, which is adduced as a citation from a sacred and prophetic 
book, is applied with some little variation.” 

It is well known how often Irenzus has used this book in his works, 
and sometimes even with the words, Joannes domini discipulus,? as he 
is accustomed to denominate the author of the Gospel. Hippolytus, 
his friend and disciple (perhaps we can hardly consider him as belonging 
to the west), wrote Ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ /wavyny εὐαγγελίου xa ἀποκαλύ- 
ψέως, as we learn from the marble monument which was discovered in 
1551, near the walls of St. Luarence; and Jerome tells us that he 
wrote de apocalypsi. Andrew of Cappadocia made frequent use of his 
exposition of the Apocalypse, honestly referring to the author; and 
James of Edessa also did the same.‘ 

The anonymous writer in Muratori states that John, the predecessor 
of the apostle Paul, was the author of the Revelation.® In the opinion 
of some learned men, this anonymous writer was Caius, the Roman 
Presbyter ; while others reckon this Caius among the declared enemies 
of the Apocalypse. He has played a similar part once before in giving 


1 Christ. Friedr. Schmid’s “ Historia antiqua et vindicatio canonis.”’ Lips. 
1775. § 113. p. 298. 

3 Hy γὰρ, καί ἐστι γνήσιος Χριστοῦ μαϑητὴς (Exdyados) ἀκολουϑῶν ἑῷ ἀρνίω 
οπου ἂν ὑπάγη--ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωϑὴ; ὁ ἄνομος ἀνομησάτω ἔτε, καὶ 6 δίκαιος 
δικαιωϑήτω ἔτε. Enseb. H. E. L. V.c. 1. 

3 Adv. Her. L. IV. c. 20. n. 11. and L. V. c. 26. m. 1. 


4 Ephrem. Syr. Opp. T.I. p. 292. locamsslo La. ro Ma )\a Sara} 


ας coarse 5 [nm 


5 Antiqq. Ital. Med. Av. ΤΠ. Ρ. 854. ‘¢ Cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, se- 
quens predecessoris sui Joannis ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis seri- 
bat,’ etc. Compare what has been said further upon this passage, in discussing 
the Canon (Part I. § 19. p. 76). 


660 THE APOCALYPSE. 


a different turn to the opinion of Christians in the west respecting the 
Epistle to the Hebrews; and on this account we cannot now dismiss 
him withouta strict examination. We might otherwise lose a consider- 
able portion of the history of the Apocalypse in the west, and the re- 
mainder would want proper connexion. 

The charge against Caius is founded on a passage of Eusebius before. 
quoted, in which, while discussing the opinions of Cerinthus, he says: 
‘Caius writes thus of him: ‘ Cerinthus likewise, who, in what he terms 
revelations, presents us fables concerning wonderful visions shown by 
angels, pretending that they were written by a great apostle, teaches that 
after the resurrection Christ is to reign upon earth, and that under this 
new constitution mankind will give themselves up to enjoyment and di- 
versions at Jerusalem, and, like an enemy of the Holy Scriptures, teach- 
es with a deceitful purpose, that the space of a thousand years will be 
spent in marriage festivities.’ ””! . 

Cerinthus, then, invented revelations in the name of a great apostle. 
The language is so general that it may have reference to Peter’s Apoca- 
lypse, or Paul’s, or even one bearing John’s name, and still not the one 
now in our possession. But, it will be said, the sequel points more defi- 
nitely to John. It is indeed evident that this forged revelation bore 
some resemblance in its contentsto John’s; but the passage by no 
means proves the latter to have been really John’s, the one which 
was ascribed to Cerinthus. It rather evinces the contrary. The 
reign of a thousand years in the midst of sensual delights, which he 
cunningly devised out of enmity to the Holy Scriptures, seems to inti- 
mate a composition which was intended as a kind of counterpart to our 
Apocalypse. For, if he maliciously invented a sensual reign of a thou- 
sand years out of opposition to the Sacred Scriptures, this opposition 
must have had reference to John’s Gospel, which alone assigns to depart- 
ed spirits a thousand years’ reign with Christ (20: 4, 5). 

I will here quote the words of a modern scholar, who has explained 
this fragment of Caius with his characteristic acuteness : “‘ Manifestius 
autem adhuc discerni videntur αἱ anoxadvweeg ille Cerinthiane a 
canonica, dum Caius a Cerintho numerum mille annorum in festum al- 
iquod nuptiale fraudis studio atque ez odio Sacrarum Scripturarum ap- 
plicatum fuisse innuit. Quarumnam enim Dei Scripturarum odio, ut 
numerice mille annorum festum impostor fingeret, adduci potuerit, nis? 
ipsius Apocalypseos canonice? Alibi enimin S. Codice mille annos 
festos promitti non novimus. Mens igitur Caii alia non videtur esse 
posse, preter hanc: finxisse Cerinthum Judaismo plenum, proprias 
anoxaduyecs ; atque ut facilius falleret Jecturos, ipsum etiam illum 
mille annorum numerum ex divinis libris, ipsi adeo, ut in pessimam par- 


1 ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ Know Fos, ὃ δὲ ἀποκαλύψεων ὡς ὑπὸ ἀποστόλου μεγάλου γε- 
γραμμένων, τετραλογίας ἡμῖν ὡς δὲ ἀγγέλων αὐτῶ δεδειγμένας ψευδόμενος, 
ἐπεισάγει λέγων" Mera τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χρισ-- 
TOU, καὶ πάλιν ἐπιϑυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ἐν “Ιηρουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευο-- 
μένην δουλεύειν. Καὶ ἐχϑρὸς ὑπάρχων ταῖς γραφαῖς τοῦ ϑεοῦ αριϑμὸν χιλι-- 
ovtastiag ἐν γάμῳ ἑορτῆς, ϑέλων πλανᾶν, λέγει γενέσϑαι.  TEuseb. H. E. 


JIT. 98, 


THE APOCALYPSE. 661 


tem iis uti non vereretur,exosis mutuum sumpsisse, suumque plasma ea 
canonice apocalypseos similitudine adfecta exornasse.”! 

This is the more certain, as Eusebius, in speaking expressly of the 
peculiar opinion of Caius concerning the Canon, says not a word of his 
disputing the Apocalypse. Jerome, too, does not appear to have known 
that Caius had an unfavorable opinion of this book. Photius, who was 
in possession of all his writings, and presents some critical notices of 
them, states as the most remarkable circumstance in regard to them, 
that he did not acknowledge the Epistle to the Hebrews, without being 
aware of any similar conduct in relation to the Apocalypse.” 

Besides, neither in Rome nor in the other Latin churches was the 
public opinion adverse to this book, as was the case respecting the Epis- 
tle tothe Hebrews. The Confessors of the Roman presbytery made 
use of it some time after in a letter to Cyprian of Carthage, which has 
come down to us in the collection of Cyprian’s letters. 

After them, Victorinus of Pannonia, Hilarius of Poitiers, Gennadius 
of Marseilles, Orosius of Spain (in his Apology against Pelagius), to- 
gether with many others, ranked the Apocalypse among the divine 
books of the New Testament, and made the same use of it as of the 
rest. 

Yet it would seem (it may be said), if we rightly apprehend Jerome, 
that the Latin church did not accord to this work the full authority of a 
canonical book. He says, in his annotations on the 149th Psalm: 
“The Apocalypse, which is read and received in the churches, is not 
numbered among the apocryphal books, but the ecclesiastical.” Neque 
enim inter apocryphas scripturas habetur, sed inter ecclesiasticas. 

In the strict sense of the term, an ecclesiastica scriptura is a book of 
only secondary rank. It is well known that a contemporary of Jerome 
divides the books of the Old and New Testament, together with those 
which make any pretensions to be such, into canonict, ecclestastict, et 
apocryphi. Now, if Jerome affixed the same meaning as this writer to 
the expression, liber ecclesiasticus, we have here a very singular fact. 
The Latins, then, placed this book in the second class, among the dis- 
puted books. Thus it will have been assigned to each of the three 
classes ; and, taking into account the opinion of the Alogians, to a 
fourth even, viz. writings forged by heretics. Strange fortune for this 
book ! 

But Jerome does not attach to this word the strict signification which 
it bears with his contemporary. For in his Epistleto Dardanus he says: 
“ΤΥ the Latins do not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the 
ἢ canonical Scriptures, so, with equal freedom, the Greek churches do 
not receive John’s Apocalypse. I, however, acknowledge both ; for 
I do not follow the custom of the times, but the authority of older wri- 
ters, who draw arguments from both as being canonical and ecclesiasti- 


1 G. Paulus, Comm. Theol. Hist. Cerinthi illustraturee. Hist. Cerinthi, 
pars prior. § 30. 

2 Euseb. H. E. VI. 21. Hieronym. Catal. V. Caius.—Photius, Cod. 48, 
Heschel. p. 16. 

3 Epistola inter Cyprianicas XX VJ, Ed. Ven. p. 92. 


662 THE APOCALYPSE. 


cal writings, and not merely as apocryphal books are sometimes used.” 
Non ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent, sed quasi canonicis et ec- 
clesiasticis. 

Here Jerome has so expressed himself, that we must believe he made 
no difference between canonical and ecclesiastical, and affixed no 
stronger signification to one than to the other. 

Moreover, his contemporary to whom we have referred, Ruffinus the 
Presbyter, who affixed the strictest signification to the words canonical, 
ecclesiastical, and apocryphal, and divided the books of the New Tes- 
tament accordingly, was not aware that the Apocalypse was excluded by 
western Christians from the number of writings of the first rank, and 
classed with those which were disputed. He cites it as one of the ca- 
nonical books; nor does he do so from his own individual judgment; 
for he says previously when he commences speaking of the Canon: 
These are the writings of the Old and New Testament, which are es- 
teemed such from the tradition of the fathers, which were inspired by 
the Holy Spirit and intrusted to the church, as we learn from the wri- 
tings of the fathers. And at the conclusion of his catalogue he adds : 
These are the books which were incorporated into the Canon by the 
fathers, and have been designated by them as the proper sources of our 
faith. 

These facts by no means afford evidence that the Latins were misled, 
by the disputes among the African and afterwards among the Asiatic 
Christians, to alter, in reference to the Apocalypse, the established 
Canon of the New Testament. 


§ 185. 


In the treatment of its subjects the Apocalypse often enters much in- 
to detail, and adorns them with many embellishments. There is a 
great deal in the detail which seems not to be essential, and yet tends 
to give definiteness to the representation of the subject. The subsidia- 


ry points are therefore frequently of consequence, and it is difficult to- 


give an outline of the whole, because in so doing we must necessarily 
omit these incidental matters. Still we will attempt a general sketch. 

John beheld upon the island of Patmos, in a trance, a form like that 
of a man, in the midst of seven candlesticks ; yet, this form was super- 
human, uncommonly glorious and divine. It commanded him to write 
seven epistles to the seven churches of Asia, of which the seven can- 
dlesticks tended by seven spirits were symbols. These Epistles com- 
mend the virtues and reprove the faults of the seven churches, admon- 
ish some to reformation and others to perseverance (—4:). 

* * * * * * * * ¥* ἢ * 


This took place upon earth; but now the door of heaven opens, and 
a herald commands John to enter. Here he beholds God upon a 
throne, encircled with glory, and around him are four and twenty of his 
elect upon four and twenty seats. A book with seven seals is in his 
right hand, and no one throughout the universe is able to open it. But 
a Lamb, standing in the midst of the throne, opens the seven seals, 
amid the hymns and praises of the spiritual world (—6:). 

At the opening of the first seal, he perceives a hero with the insignia 


THE APOCALYPSE. 663 


of victory. At that of the second, peace departs from the earth; at 
that of the third, famine appears; at that of the fourth, death and his 
retinue. At the opening of the fifth, the blood of the martyrs cries out 
for vengeance. The sixth is opened ; the sun and the moon are dark- 
ened; the stars fall from heaven; fear and anguish become universal. 
Four angels restrain the tempests, till an angel who ascends from the 
east has sealed with the seal of the living God out of every tribe of 
Israel twelve thousand who are to be preserved. Around the throne 
of God stand a multitude of all nations in white robes, with palms in 
their hands; who have come out of great tribulation, and are now com- 
forted and sing praises to God (—8:). The seventh seal is opened ; 
all heaven is silent; and now appear seven angels with seven trumpets. 
The prayers of the saints are upon an altar before God; and their 
sweet savor ascends before him (—8: 7). 
*& * * * 7 * * * * * * 


The first of the seven angels sounds; fire, hail and blood fall upon 
the earth. At the sound of the second trumpet, a burning mountain is 
cast into the sea, and the third part of the water becomes blood. 
The third trumpet sounds, and a bright star falls upon the third part of 
the rivers and fountains of waters, and they become bitter. The 
fourth sounds; the third part of the sun, moon, and stars is darkened. 
An eagle flies through the midst of heaven, crying, Wo to the inhabi- 
tants of the earth! ‘he fifth sounds; a star falls from heaven, and to 
it is given the key of the bottomless pit, which it opens, and all kinds 
of hurtful insects come forth. At the sound of the sixth trumpet, the 
four angels bound in the river Euphrates are loosed. The third part 
of mankind die in battle ; but the survivors do not repent or turn from 
their idolatry (—10:). ‘ 

An angel of colossal figure speaks with the voice of seven thunders, 
and gives John a book, which he commands him to swallow. He swal- 
lows it, and begins to prophesy. He then measures the temple, but 
leaves the outer court and the city to the Gentiles. Two mariyrs, who 
are mentioned in terms of high eulogium, prophesy and die in figur- 
ative Sodom: the tenth part of the city dies(—I11: 15). The seventh 
angel sounds. ‘The four and twenty elders fall down before the throne 
of God, and sing triumphal songs (—12:). 

* * * * * * * * * * * 

A woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon 
under her feet, and a crown of stars upon her head. Her hour of de- 
livery approaches, and a dragon lies in wait for her child, who is to rule 
the nations with a rod of iron. Michael casts the dragon down to the 
earth, thereby causing a general rejoicing in heaven. Even here the 
dragon persecutes the woman in travail, who avoids him by fleeing into 
the wilderness, where she brings forth and nurses her child. The drag- 
on then makes war with the remnant of the woman’s seed (—13:). 

Meanwhile, a monster rises from the sea with seven heads, ten horns, 
and ten crowns. He makes war with the saints; all nations worship 
him. Another comes forth from the earth with two horns, speaking 
like a dragon. He subjects mankind to the power of the first beast ; 
makes an image of him, and commands the world to worship him. He 


664 THE APOCALYPSE. 


marks the worshippers of the beast with a peculiar mark. ‘The num- 
ber of the beast is six hundred and sixty-six. 
The Lamb stands upon Mount Zion, and sets a mark upon his fol- 
lowers. New praises are sung before him (—14: 6). 
Three angels appear in heaven. One bears the everlasting Gospel ; 
another cries: Babylon is fallen; the third denounces punishment up- 
on the worshippers of the beast. There appears above a cloud the 
form of ἃ man with asickle in his hand, and an angel also appears 
with a sickle; one reaps the harvest, the other the vintage (—15:). 
* # # * * * * * #* * #* 


Seven angels with seven vials of wrath come forth from the taberna- 
cle of God, which is filled with smoke. ‘The first pours out his vial, and 
a grievous sore falls upon men. The second pours his out upon the 
sea, which becomes like clotted blood. The third upon the rivers and 
fountains of waters, and they become blood. The fourth pours his out 
upon the sun, and men are scorched by its heat; the fifth upon the seat 
of the beast, and it is, enveloped in darkness. The sixth pours out his 
vial upon the Euphrates, and its sources are dried up. Finally, the sev- 
enth pours out his vial into the air, and a voice sounds from God’s sanc- 
tuary in heaven, crying: It is done. Nature seems to be in confusion ; 
all kinds of terrible phenomena occur, to complete the ruin (—17:). 

One of the seven angels now comes to John, leads him into the wil- 
derness, and shows him another woman, sitting upon a scarlet beast 
with seven heads and ten horns. She bears the name Babylon upon 
her forehead, is drunken with the blood of the saints, and entices the 
nations to fornication. ‘The heads are seven hills, the horns are ten 
kings. The beast hasteneth to destruction (—18:). 

‘Another angel comes down from heaven, and proclaims the fall of 
Babylon; he incites the nations to vengeance. A lament over Babylon 
is sung upon earth. Hallelujah is sung in heaven; for the marriage of 
the Lamb is at hand (—19: 11). 


* * * * * * * μὴ 3 * * 


The conqueror on the white horse appears again. His name is writ- 
ten on his thigh; he is called king of kings, and also λόγος ϑεοῦ. An 
angel, standing in the sun, calls the fowls of heaven to the battle-field, 
where corpses of princes and mighty men await them in great numbers ; 
for their last efforts at resistance have been fruitless (—20:). 

Meanwhile, an angel descends from heaven, having the key of the 
bottomless pit. He there binds the beast, and shuts up his prison for a 
thousand years, during which time the saints reign with Jesus. Af- 
ter this period, however, the beast comes forth to fight anew, and calls 
distant nations to his aid; but in vain. He is consigned to eternal tor- 
ment by fire (—20: 11). 


The Judge is seated upon his throne; the universe flees away ; the. 


book of life is unrolled ; the graves give up their dead, and they are 
judged (—21:). 

A new heaven and anew earth appear. A new Jerusalem descends 
to earth, like a bride adorned for her husband. Its towers, its walls, 
and its palaces, are ornamented with characters relating to Christianity. 
There is consolation, quiet, peace, perpetual light; and there God reigns 
forever (—22: 6). 


THE APOCALYPSE. 665 


Then follow a final address to John and John’s farewell words to 
his readers. 


§ 186. 


Interpreters have been less fortunate in regard to the Apocalypse 
than in regard to any other book of the New Testament; a proof that soon 
after the downfall of the Jewish state, familiar acquaintance with the 
cast of thought and peculiar views of this nation was lost, and even 
Asiatics no longer understood Jewish diction and Palestinian imagery. 
We may imagine, then, what has been the case in later days. At one 
time Antichrist and the end of the world were seen in it; at another the 
history of the church represented in visions. ‘hen it comprised the 
history of the world, of the Saracens, Huns, Turks, &c. ‘hen the 
Pope had his turn, the corruption of the clergy, next the Romish church 
and the Reformation, and many other things not a whit better chosen. 

Among modern writers, Bossuet trod a more judicious path.! The 
Apocalypse appeared to him to refer to the conquest of Rome and the 
dismemberment of the empire, events which occurred through the 
agency of Alaric, king of the Goths. The contents of the book ex- 
tend to this period, he thinks,and show the judgments of God upon 
the idolatrous state which had so often oppressed Christianity. The 
latter is now avenged and triumphs over all persecution. Other pre- 
ceding circumstances, which are included and treated at still greater 
length, are, the fortunes of Christianity under the Cesars, their perse- 
cutions of it, particularly that of Diocletian, the momentary quiet 
which it enjoyed under Constantine, and then the oppressions of Juli- 
an, by which the divine chastisement was hastened. ww 

Such, in Bossuet’s opinion, are the contents of the Revelation ; and he 
was afterwards followed by Calmet. Wetstein thought differently, and 
imagined that it related, in particular, to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
the fate of Judaism connected therewith, and the ascendancy of Chris- 
tianity.2 He was followed by Herder, who is very happy in some of 
his details.° 

Long before, however, Hugo Grotius, a man of extremely nice dis- 
cernment, had penetrated further into its purport than any of the wri- 
ters who have been mentioned. In the introduction to the fourth chap- 
ter of his exposition of this book, he says: “‘ Pertinent autem hee visa 
ad res Judzorum usque ad finem capitis undecimi: inde ad res Roma- 
norum usque ad finem capitis vicesimi: deinde ad statum florentissi- 
mum ecclesie Christiane ad finem usque.” 

A still more-thorough insight into the mysteries of this book was ob- 
tained by John Simon Herrenschneider, Professor at Strasburg ; and he 
has exhibited it in a small but comprehensive treatise. He shows that 

1 L’Apocalypse avec une explication. 1689. 

2 Nov. Test. Prolog. in Apoc. 


3 MAPANAOA, das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des N. T. Siegel.” 
Riga, 1779. 8vo. 


4 Apocalypsis a Cap. 1V—finem illustrande tentamen, Argentorati, 1786. 4to. 
26 pages. 34 


> 


666 THE APOCALYPSE. 


the two cities Rome and Jerusalem, the fortunes of which constitute 
the greater portion of the Apocalypse, are only symbols of two reli- 
gions, the downfall of which is predicted; and that the third, which 
appears at the close, the heavenly Jerusalem, denotes the reign of the 
blessed. Commencing at these starting points, a celebrated scholar has 
discussed the Apocalypse very thoroughly, and his work is at present the 
principal one on this subject.! 


§ 187. 


In this book three cities are mentioned, in reference to which all 
these terrible occurrences above and below, and all the commotions of 
terrestrial and celestial powers, take place. One of them is Sodom, 
called likewise Egypt; another is Babylon; and the third is a new Je- 
rusalem coming down out of heaven. 

The whole scene in regard to the seven angels with the seven trum 
pets (8:—12:), relates ostensibly to Sodom. But we speedily see that 
this long-destroyed city only furnishes a name by which to designate 
another. - For in this Sodom our Lord was crucified, ὅπου ὁ κύριος 
ἡμῶν ἐσταυρωϑη (11:8). In this Sodom is the temple, the outer 
court of which is given up to the Gentiles. Indeed, it is the Holy 
City itself, woAeg ayia, of which foreign nations are to take possession 
(11: 1 seq.). Whentwo martyrs have perished in it, its destruction is 
determined (—12: 1). Josephus, the Jew, likewise, compared Jerusa- 
lem at the same period to Sodom (Beil. Jud. V. 10). 

After a long episode, in which a woman appears in the pangs of 
child-birth, persecuted by a dragon; and after the description of two 
other monsters, who vex this woman’s kindred, (12: 13: 14:), the destrue- 
tion of Babylon is decreed in heaven (14: 8). 

The seven angels with the seven vials of wrath execute the decree 
(—16: 17, 19), although Babylon had been a waste place for centuries, 
and scarce any relics of its glory were discoverable. But this Babylon 


is built upon seven hills: ὅπου ὄρη εἰσὶν ἑπτά (17: 9—18). It was an- 


urbs septicollis, a famous mark of distinction, which makes it easy for us 
to understand what city is really intended. But the other characteris- 
tic, that it has the imperium orbis terrarum, βασιλεία ἐπὶ τῶν βασελέ- 
wy τὴς γῆς affords us complete assurance {17: 18), that this Babylon 
on the Euphrates is Rome on the Tiber.” 

Thus Jerusalem and Rome are the two cities whose destruction was 
here seen in the Spirit. These cities, however, do not stand merely as 
such in this poetical production; they are figures of other ideas. 
Rome, or Babylon, is contrasted by the author with the everlasting Gos- 


1 Commentarius in Apocalypsin Joannis. Scrips. Joh. Godofr. Eichhorn. 2 
vols. 8vo. Gotting. 1791. 


2 Rome hasa mystic name in the Apocalypse ; one reason of which may be, 
that the mistress of the world really had a secret name, which it was considered 
disastrous to have publicly divulged (Plin. H. N. III. 5. Solinus, I. Macrob. Sat- 
urn.) ΠΠ. 5. Plutarch, Quest. Rom. Qu.61. Servius, ad Ain. 11. 295. 1V. 598. 
Georg. [. 498. See the learned treatise of Dr. Fr. Minter, Selandiz Episcopus, 
De oceulto urbis Rome nomine adl oc. Apoc. XVII. 5. Hafnie, 1811. According 
to him, Jerusalem also had a mystic name. 


Sr τεὔ 


THE APOCALYPSE. 667 


pel, εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον (14: 0, 7, 8). Thus contrasted with Christian- 
aty, itcan hardly denote any thing else than heathenism, to represent 
which it was natural to select the metropolis of the heathen world. 
John, too, describes it in such language as is commonly used by the 
prophets concerning false gods and the worship of them. It is the hab- 
atation of devils, the seducer to unfaithfulness towards the true God, to 
mooveia, and all the nations and kings of the earth drink of the cup of 
her fornication (18: 2, 3. 17: 1, 2, 5). 

If the capital of the heathen world represents the pagan religion, we 
may easily infer what is represented by the Jewish capital. What but 
the Jewish religion? Heathenism and Judaism, the two dominant re- 
ligions of the ancient world, were doomed to fall. 

And what was to take their place? A new Jerusalem, the kingdom 
of the blessed after this life (21:—22: 6). Suchis the representation of 
this new Jerusalem, it is true, and as such it is usually regarded. But, 
if other cities denote religions, so must this. If Rome and Jerusalem 
represent heathenism and Judaism, the new Zion can be no other than 
Christianity, which is to rule and bless mankind forever. ‘This the uni- 
ty of the whole demands, for there would be no unity, if the plot, so to 
speak, was composed of such dissimilar topics as heathenism, Judaism, 
and eternal blessedness. 

Why, moreover, should this kingdom of the blessed forsake its an- 
cient and happy abode in heaven and come down among men, unless it 
were an earthly institution (21: 23). It was only as a religion that it 
could descend to earth to supply the place of the two religions which 
were destroyed. 

It is no objection to this opinion, that the graves are first opened and 
the dead restored to life. The resurrection of the dead which is here - 
mentioned is only one of those strong, terrific images sometimes em~- 
ployed by the prophets to denote a total change of affairs, the revival of 
national prosperity and of the religious constitution of the Jews (Eze- 
kiel 37: Isaiah 36: 19). 

And as to the circumstance that a day of judgment is connected 
therewith, we know that this too, was made use of figuratively by the 
prophets, to denote the execution of punishment upon those who oppres- 
sed and ill-treated the people of God, or to express God’s purpose of 
bringing about a_new epoch of glory for his religion and his people 
(Joel 3: 2 seq. Zephaniah 3: 8 seq.). 

This being admitted, the whole passage in relation to the seven seals 
is but the introduction to the three principal descriptions, the dissolution 
of Judaism, the abolition of heathenism, and the ascendancy of the 
doctrines of Jesus (5:—7: 2). For, in accordance with the representa- 
tion of an ancient prophetical writer (Isaiah 29: 11), prophecy is a seal- 
ed book ; and its mysteries can be unfolded only by the Lamb near the 
throne of God, who rules with Jehovah, in whose hand are all events. 
Terrible plagues, famine, pestilence, war, and a total overthrow of king- 
doms are to come ; but from these calamities the elect of the Lamb are 
exempted, 

The letters which commence the book, and extend to chapter IVth, 
are dedications to those churches with which the writer was particular- 
ly connected in the labors of his office. 

The episode which follows the judgment upon Jerusalem (12:—13:), 


668 THE APOCALYPSE. 


relative to the woman who is in the pangs of labor and is persecuted by 
the dragon (the image of idolatry employed of old by Daniel), repre- 
sents Judaism bringing forth Christianity, as is clear from all the cir- 
cumstances and particular traits of the description. ‘The other mon- 
sters, who come up out of the earth and the sea, and are in the service 
of the dragon, denote, it is plain, the Roman power by land and sea, 
which sustained the dominion of Paganism (13. 1—14: 6). 

In correspondence with this after the judgment upon Rome (17: 1. 
18:), we find another woman upon a scarlet-colored beast. The former 
woman, after her new-born child is taken up to the throne of God, 
henceforth wanders in the desert and in pathless regions; a beautiful 
image of the wandering condition of the Jews; but the fate of the lat- 
ter woman is not so lenient. Her destruction is shortly afterwards 
celebrated with songs of triumph and with jubilee. It is evident that 
the latter denotes idolatry, as the former denoted Judaism. 


§ 188. 


It is unnecessary to remark, that by no means all the particular traits 
and images in this large work are significant. Many are introduced 
only toenliven the representation, or taken from the prophets and sa- 
cred books for the purpose of ornament ; and no one, who has any judg- 
ment in such matters, will deny that the work is extraordinarily rich 
and gorgeous for a production of western origin. ‘The description of 
the punishments by hail, pestilence, rivers turned into blood, insects 
and vermin, are imitations of the description given in Genesis of the 
Egyptian plagues, and neither require nor admit a special historical in- 
terpretation. The darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of stars, 
are poetical figures of common use in the prophets to denote, by means 
of great and terrible occurrences, vast national calamity, or the downfall 
of illustrious personages. The most sublime and most effective images 
and passages in the prophets are scattered by the writer with profusion 
throughout his work, for the purpose of giving it an oriental gorgeous- 
ness, which leaves all the productions of Arabian authors in the shade. 
' Moreover, the numbers are rarely to be taken arithmetically, unless 
when there are special reasons for so doing. Seven seals, seven angels, 
seven trumpets, seven vials of wrath, seven thunders—who does not see 
that the number seven is a prophetic and sacred number, and is used 
merely for the purpose of decoration and costume? So, too, with. the 
round numbers, and the times and half times. They neither admit of 
a chronological nor a numerical signification; but are mostly indefi- 
nite numbers and periods. Ag 

Throughout the whole book there are but two events related, which 
are susceptible of a historical interpretation. In this statement we 
pass by the supremacy of Christianity with which the writer’s visions 
terminate. The destruction of Jerusalem was an actual occurrence, 
and therefore we might expect the poet to present, as far as practicable, 
real circumstances, instead of poetical and invented ones. We are thus 
referred to history in our interpretation, so far as she will come to our aid 
unforced and of her own accord. 

Parallel to this is the destruction of Rome. It is true that it had not 


THE APOCALYPSE. 669 


then occurred, but it is assumed by the writer as having happened, that 
his representations may correspond to each other. Still, however, he 
‘saw the then mistress of the world in acondition, which was peculiar to 
his time, and afforded him facts enough to portray a state visibly de- 
‘lining to the final ruin of its greatness. Here, also, in order to give 
fidelity, to his picture and render it easy of recognition, it was necessary 
to select facts from the actual condition of things. In this way his de- 
scription became strikingly exact, and,passed from the bounds of ideal 
imagery within those of real resemblance. In this, however, as in the 
former case, we must avoid everything trifling, far-fetched, or ‘forced, in 
our interpretation. 


§ 189. 


Clear as it is, from what has been said, that the plan of this work is 
well-digested and its structure skilful, we cannot, after all, obtain a 
competent idea of it, without going over it step by step for ourselves and 
scrutinizing the mutual relation of the parts. In this way only can 
we come to perceive with pleasure the beautiful symmetry of its plan 
and its extremely nice construction. 

It has been recently attempted to class it, as respects its structure, 
among dramatic works. We may, it is true, adduce the fact that there 
are in Clement and Eusebius (Πάῤαοκ. Lvayy.) fragments of a Jewish 
tragedian, named Ezekiel, who lived about this time. And, we may re- 
mark, that John wrote primarily for Ionian and Asiatic cities, which had 
been acquainted with and attached to the drama for centuries. _All'this, 
however, could only serve to explain the fact, if John had really select- 
ed a dramatic form for his production. But a mere narrative can nev- 
er belong to the dramatic class of compositions ; and, if it were neces- 
sary or possible to bring the poetical productions of every country and 
people under Aristotle’s classification, or to arrange them after the 
Greek manner, this composition, which is merely descriptive, should 
rather be considered asepic. Yet, althoughit wants the principal char- 
acteristics of the drama, it cannot be denied that this hypothesis, in con- 
formity; with which the author of it has analyzed the whole book, is ἐὰν 
tremely useful as an aid to a conception of the book and to the memory.! 

As to the language, it is less the language of John himself than that 
of the prophets, from whom he has borrowed their ornaments, to exhib- 
it them here, as it were in acollection. And even when hespeaks him- 
self, he necessarily strives to imitate their style and diction, as nearly as 
possible, in order to preserve a uniformity of tone. Those, therefore, 
may be right, who assert that the style of the Apocalypse is not that of 
John ; but they must not, on this account, deny his title to a book which 
he intentionally composed of the figures of other writers, and plenti- 
fully filled with the beauties of the literature of his country, after the ori- 
ental custom. Nor must they attempt to show a discrepancy in style, from 
a comparison of the Apocalypse with the Gospel or the Epistles; for 
the simple historical style, or the language of friendly communication, 
is not by any means the terminus comparationis for a decision respect- 
ing the authorship ¢ of a poetical work. 


1 Eichhorn, Comment. in Apocalyps. p. 19—33. 


670 THE APOCALYPSE. 


§ 190. 


The book itself affords us a clue, which we will not neglect, in respect 
to the time when it was composed. In the seventeenth chapter, John 
describes a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored beast, which has seven 
heads and ten horns. This bold allegorical representation is intended 
to exhibit figuratively the condition of Rome. We may therefore ex- 
pect to find in it traces of fact which individualize the subject, and en- 
able us to recognize it as something more than an ideal fancy. 

The woman, he says, is ἢ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, the great city (v. 18), and 
bears the name Babylon (ν. δ). The seven heads are the seven hills on 
which the woman sits (v.9). The seven hills are also seven kings: καὶ 
βασιλεῖς ἑπτὰ εἰσι. Some verses after, the ten horns of the beast are 
waa as meaning ten kings: ta δέκα κέρατα δέκα βασιλεῖς εἰσν 

v. 12). 

It is not possible that Rome should then have had ten and yet at the 
same time but seven rulers. We must therefore consider the kings in 
one of the passages as not meaning persons, and must interpret them in 
a different manner. We will do this with reference tothe seven hills, 
for the fen horns are so described that we find no difficulty in recogni- 
zing in them the Cesars. The seven hills are seven kings, would then 
mean only that they were kingly hills, on which rested the dominion of 
the world. The play upon the numbers—five are fallen—one is—the 
other is not yet come—and the eighth hill isthe beast, that hasteth to per- 
dition—all this only signifies that the Roman power had not yet reached 
its utmost height, and yet the internal strength of the state was dimin- 
ishing ; it was evidently approaching its ruin. 

After speaking of Rome and the empire, he passes to those on whom 
devolved the direction of its affairs and resources, and the domes- 
tic exercise of power. The ten horns are ten kings, δέκα βασιλεῖς 
εἶσι (17: 12). Let us see how they are described: they did not re- 
ceive their power, but assumed it themselves ; they themselves hate the 
woman, the πόρνη μεγαλη: they make her desolate and naked; they 
eat her flesh and burn her with fire. ‘And this woman is the great 
city, ἡ πόλις ἢ μεγάλη (17: 16, 18). Can we fail to recognise in this 
picture the reign ,of the Cesars, the manner in which they acquired 
the throne, their abuse of power, the execution and banishment of the 
most distinguished citizens, the squandering of treasure and resources, 
and, lastly, the incendiary act of Nero? 

There had been, then, ten Caesars at the time when he wrote; Au- 
gustus, Tiberins, Caius, Claudius, Nero, Otho, Galba, Vitellius, Vespa- 
sian, Titus. It was in the reign of this last, it would seem, that he 
wrote his work. ‘Thus much from the writer himself; another histori- 
cal account is given us by Irenzus, which deserves attention. In the 
Latin it runs thus: ‘‘ Quoniam si oporteret manifeste presenti tempore 
preconiari nomen ejus (animalis) per ipsum utique editum fuisset, qui 
et Apocalypsin viderat, neque enim ante multum temporis visum est, sed 
pene sub nostro seculo ad finem Domitiani imperii.” (L. V. Adv. Her. 
ο. 30). An excellent scholar,'on the authority of this ancient version, 

- enema | ame | ΝΥΝ ea 5 Μὰ a itate) 


1 Knittel, “ Beytrage zur Kritik der Offenbarung, ein Synodalschreiben. 
Braunschweig. 1773. ; 


a ῬΡΨΨ, ὦ 


THE APOCALYPSE. 671 


has interpreted this passage as relating to the name of the beast—nomen 
visum est, and thinks that Ireneus understood by it Titus Domitianus, 
because, directly, before he proposes the name ‘%itan as containing 
the beast’s number stated by John, viz. six hundred and sixty-six. But, 
if we consult the Greek text, which has fortunately been preserved 
here, we shall find that we can translate either, visus est, visa est, or 
visum est: Lt γὰρ ἔδει ἀνάφανδον τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσϑαι τοὔνο-- 
μα αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐῤῥήϑη τοῦ τὴν ἀποχάλυψεν, ἑωρακότος. 
Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ ἑωραϑη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, 
πρὸς τῷ τελετῆς Aoucteavov ἀρχῆς. Thus ἑωραάϑη may mean visum 
est nomen, visus est Joannes, or visa est Apocalypsis. 

The first of these interpretations, however, visum est nomen, would 
seem to be the mostimprobable. In Irenzus, the following statements 
precede the above passage : Titan is probably the name of the beast, for 
it is a royal name, “ tale autem vest antiquum et fide dignum.et regale ma- 
gis autem et tyrannicum nomen.” 2d. No king had yet borne this name, 

“neque eorum regum, qui secundum nos suni, aliquis vocatus est Titan.” 
3d. The name, nevertheless, might be borne by a future king, “‘tamen 
habet verisimilitudinem, ut ex multis colligamus,ne forte Titan vocetur, 
qui veniet.” From these words of Irenzus, it appears that the name had 
not yet occurred, and therefore it cannot have been Domitian. 

As little foundation is there for Wetstein’s interpretation : visus est 
Joannes. On this supposition, the father intended to say: It isnot very 
long since John was seen among us; he was alive in the reign of Do- 
mitian. He intended, therefore, to express the shortness of the period 
between his own time and the latter days of John. But what he said 
was ill-adapted to this purpose ; for, according to his statement, John 
lived much longer and approached much nearer to his day, having lived 
till the time of Trajan : “Sed et que est Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem 
fundata, Joanne autem permanente usque ad tempora Trajani, testis est 
verus apostolorum traditionis” (L. III. Adv. Her. c. 3. n. 4). He would 
therefore have said: neque enim ante multum temporis visus est, sed 
sub nostro seculo, Trajani nimirum imperio.” 

There is no choice left but visa est Apocalypsis ; and then, according 
to this father, the revelation was made to John in the reign of Domi- 
tian: “si enim oporteret preconiari nomen ejus, per ipsum utique edi- 
tum fuisset, qui et apocalypsin viderat; neque enim ante multum tem- 
poris visa est, sed pene sub nostro sieculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii.” 

But the inference derived from the book itself does not agree with 
the statement of Ireneus. John reckoned ten Cwsars when he wrote 
his book, and the tenth was Titus; while Irenzus states it to have been 
in the reign of Domitian, the brother and successor of Titus, that the 
revelation was made. There are arguments in favor of the opinion 
of the latter, which appear in fact, to contravene the author of the book, 
himself. 

John says that he saw the revelation at Patmos, whither he went for 
the testimony of Jesus Christ (1:9). But ancient history unanjmously 
asserts that he was not banished thither till Domitian’s reign. ‘The hu- 
mane government of Titus, as well as that of his father likewise, was 
by no means stained with the persecution of any one διὰ τὴν μαρτυ- 
giav Jnoouv; but his brother, who was of so dissimilar a character, is 
expressly charged with cruelty towards the Christians. The statements 


672 THE APOCALYPSE. 


and intimations of history, of which many might be presented here, 
are therefore in favor of Irenzus. How can this be explained ? 

John reckons ten Cesars. Let us suppose that he reckoned only 
those that had deceased, without including the one thenliving. The lat- 
ter persecuted Christianity, and had removed John himself from his-sta- 
tion in the church, and banished him from the midst of his flock. What 
should he, what could he, say of him that was good? And would it 
have Sapa in accordance mith his Master’s spirit, or the spirit of his 
doctrines, to speak evil of him? If then he could say neither good nor 
ill of him, had he any other choice than to be silent? Thus, it seems 
to me, both may be reconciled with each other. John enumerates only 
those emperors who had already deceased, and leaves it for others to 
mention him who was then living, and who was by no means an honor to: 
the human race. Irenzus mentions the eleventh, concerning whom he: 
had no reason to be silent. 


§ 191. 


John, then, wrote the Revelation in Domitian’s reign ; and this fact 
promises us some light in regard to the occasion and purpose of the 
book. He himself had been banished to Patmos for the testimony of 
Jesus (1: 9); and his was not a solitary case of hardship, but it was a 
part of the He tribulation of Christianity; he was but a συγκοένω- 
νὸς ἐν τῇ ϑλίψει. The churches under his care groaned under severe: 
suffering ; Christians were exposed to punishments inflicted on them 
by the civil authorities and tribunals of justice. They were thrown in- 
to prison, and led to death, or were in constant expectation of it (2: 
10,11). At all events, there were not wanting distinguished examples 
of a noble constancy which had already been rewarded with the crown 
of martyrdom (2: 13). Some, however, had succumbed under their tri- 
als, dishonored their religion, and denied him who acknowledges his 
faithful followers before his Father and his angels (3: 4, 5, 6). 

This happened in Proconsular Asia, under Roman judges. Such 
was the violence practised by paganism towards the adherents of Jesus. 
The Jews, it would seem however, (2: 9), had no small share in this vi- 
olence, and were active, probably by informations, secret or open accu- 
sations, and by instigation, in adding severity to the lot of the Chris- 
tians. We are told by Jasda Martyr : They, as well as the Romans, 
treat us as enemies, eonsider us as rebels, murder and abuse us so far 
as they have opportunity.! 

Such was the condition of Christianity between the adherents of the 
two religions. She was hated by both parties; and unhappily, more- 
over, her internal peace was disturbed by heretics, and her teachers 
were in exile. 

Her condition was fearful; consolation and encouragement were 
needed, and whence should they come? Grounds of consolation were 
presented by the circumstances of the time. Jerusalem was in ruins; 
the ashes which covered the temple and the sanctuary had hardly gone 


l Apol, Major. Rob. Steph. 146. ᾿4λλ ἐχϑροὺς ἡμᾶς καὶ πολεμίους 
ἡγοῦνται, ὁμοίως ὑμῖν ἀναιροῦντες καὶ κολάζοντες ὑμᾶς, ὅπόταν δύνωνται. 


~ 


THE APOCALYPSE. 673 


out. To this fact John directed the attention of the oppressed, and in- 
spirited them with hope. Justice had already been inflicted on Jeru- 
salem; the last throes of Judaism were seen ; soon this religion and the 
rage of its adherents would no longer excite apprehension ! 

The fact was striking; the example of the divine dealings towards 
the enemies of his word was a plain one, and might serve as a warn- 
ing to heathenism. The latter days of Nero, the civil wars after his 
time, and the odious reign of Domitian, afforded, besides, no brilliant 
prospect as to the duration of the Roman power, with which must sink 
the authority of the state-religion. It would, therefore, lose the power 
of destroying any other system of religion. 

Thus could he encourage Christianity, incite its professors to constan- 
cy in these trying times, that they might maintain their religion, and 
transmit it to those brighter days when it would rise nobly and trium- 
phantly over every adverse fortune, erect its altars in every nation, and 
become the religion of the world. 


ΠΟ ΝΕ 
eu Ή Aree 


t $c 
ay 


a 


ae rte 


oil 
~ 
ee aed 


= 


fd. 
wdq |): 


; ΤᾺ “le ESTA) bP it) Wed | ς 
ἂν χὰ) 


Ἡδλδν ἢ : 
παι! ἃ 
Fa Z ; ἀν ο ΗΝ 
ον ET AT ΤΟΝ Wi ΚΎ» ὅ0 by Ai 


ἢ ἐγ Ἰὼ Go DUDS 5.0} συ 


NOTES. 


TO HUG’S INTRODUCTION, 


BY 


M. STUART, 


PROF. SAC, LIT. IN THE THEOL. SEM. ANDOVER. 


Tue preceding work of Hug occupies so large a space, that it is im- 

possible to make any copious additions to it without rendering the volume 
inconvenient and unwieldy. ‘The writer of the following notes is con- 
strained, therefore, merely to add a few remarks and notes, by which he 
hopes to render this volume more useful to students of New Testament 
literature in our country. The notes, from the nature of the case, must 
be very miscellaneous. They must also be mere ints, rather than for- 
mal discussion ; for such discussion on all’the topics where it might be 
easy to find occasion for it, would occupy, or might easily be made to 
occupy, atleast as much space as the author’s text itself. The reader 
will not therefore expect from me what the circumstances of the present 
case render inexpedient or impracticable. 
_ It would have been more convenient, perhaps, for the reader, if ref- 
erences to the Notes could have been made in the text, as now printed, 
so often as these notesoccur. But as it was anticipated that the num- 
ber and quantity of them must be proportioned to the room occupied by 
the text, this could not be done while the latter was printing. The read- 
er may now, by turning to the Notes, always be able, without any seri- 
ous inconvenience, to find where and when they should be consulted, if 
he is desirous to consult them. 


EE --.--ς-ς-.--.-. .-- 


Nott 1. Style of the New Testament Greek. (p., 13.) 


The statement made by Hug respecting the judgment which a critic 
“ Dossessing ability to read them’ would form of the New Testament 
books, viz. that ‘the Greek is certainly not in any one of the proper 
dialects of the language, but is a corrupted style of expression and 


676 NOTE I. 


construction,” is one which needs some correction. It savours altogeth- 
er of the opinion that was formed and defended by many critics, before 
the labours of Planck and Winer in relation to this subject were laid 
before the world. Peculiar constructions, forms of phraseology, mean- 
ings of many prepositions, adverbs, and other words, were, by some 
critics of name, referred habitually and almost every where to the He- 
brew. Later investigations, and particularly those by the two authors 
just named, have shewn that a great portion of the so-called Hebraisms 
are to be met with in the later Greek writers, contemporary, or nearly 
so, with the writers of the New Testament. The later Alticizing 
Greek is now regarded, by critics in general, so far as I know, as un- 
questionably the “basis of the New ‘Testament idiom: Departures from 
classic usage in some respects, are beyond all doubt to be found in the 
New Testament. But how could this possibly be otherwise? The 
writers of this volume were obliged to express a multitude of ideas, 
which were, as we may say, entire strangers to the heathen circle of 
thought and expression ; ideas, which their living under the ancient 
revelation and their being enlightened by it, had made current and com- 
mon among the Hebrews, but of which the heathen Greeks had enter- 
tained no conception, and therefore had formed no words to express 
them in an adequate manner. In sucha case, all that was possible for 
the New ‘Testament writers was, either to coin new words in Greek, or 
else employ words already coined in a new sense. They have accom- 
plished their task in both these ways; as any good New Testament lex- 
icon will every where and plainly shew. But in so doing, they have not 
acted differently from what a heathen Greek would have done, had he 
been transferred to a new circle of ideas, and undertaken to communi- 
cate them in the Greek language. 

The supposition of mere arbitrary usage, as to style and diction, by 
the writers of the New Testament, is quite an unfounded one; and if 
true, it would set afloat every thing on which the sound rules of exegesis 
are built. The syntax of the New Testament in scarcely a single case 
departs from that which may be found in classic Greek ; the forms of 
words employed by the sacred writers are throughout conformed to the 
method of the Greek idiom. Even when the New Testament writers 
coin new words, as they are occasionally obliged to do, they coin them 
strictly according to the laws of analogy. The infinitive mode, the par- 
ticiple, the article, are allemployed more Graecorum. Prepositions and 
adverbs are employed i in the usual relations, and with the usual senses, 
merely excepting, perhaps, some enlargement of meaning which is oc- 
casionally perceptible. In short, whether we resort to the formal or 
syntactical part of grammar, we see that New Testament usage has 
little in reality that may not be found in the heathen writers, a century 
before and after the birth of the Saviour. 

So much indeed is and must be true, viz., that, being Hebrews, 
when writing Greek they employ Hebrew modes of thought and expres- 
sion; and they do this often; and soone would naturally expect. But 
how coulda Hebrew express his religious views and feelings without 
doing thus? That was, from the very nature of the case, quite impos- 
sible. Hence a knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures becomes 
indispensable to an enlarged and accurate knowledge of the New Tes- 


STYLE OF N. TEST. GREEK. 677 


tament. ‘Hebraism as to shade or mode of thought, may be often and 
almost every where resorted to with profit by the interpreter; but let 
him look well to the matter when he rests any important deduction up- 
on the meaning of Greek words as merely traced to Hebrew usage, in 
order to make out a sense for them which is foreign to their ordinary 
nature. Great caution and judgment are needed here. It isoniy when 
the thought or the phraseology is manifestly of Hebraistic origin, that 
we can fully confide in making out the sense of the New Testament 
writers merely by resort to the idiom of the Hebrews. 

Yet, with all these highly important limitations to the position ad- 
vanced by Hug, the main thing which he aims at is true; i. e. it is true 
that none but Hebrews could have composed such a book as the New 
Testament. I think it is scarcely possible to go from an extensive and 
careful perusal of heathen Greek, to the study of the New Testament 
in its original language, without feeling an unwavering conviction — 
spring up in the mind, that none but Hebrews could have written it. Yet 
this conclusion could not be properly built on the formal or syntactical 
phenomena of the New Testament style. It would establish itself on 
the shade of thought, the modes of expression, the familiarity with 
Hebrew ideas and diction, and the general costume of the whole. ‘The 
conviction becomes spontaneous and irresistible, after a little practice 
in careful reading, that those familiar with Hebrew ideas, a Hebrew 
circle of thought, Hebrew modes of education, a Hebrew country and 
government, the Hebrew Scriptures, and (in a word) the whole condition 
of Hebrew life and action,—that none but such men, could possibly 
have written the New Testament. 

This then would all serve to shew, beyond any rational doubt, that 
the New Testment was, as it professes to be, written by Hebrews, and so 
that it is evinced to be a genuine production, as far as this matter is 
concerned. 

Inquirersof the present time can hardly refrain from astonishment, that 
Pfochen and many other Purists labored so long, so heartily, and with 
so much effort and learning, to shew that the style of the New Testa- 
ment is purely Attic. They deemed this essential to its elevated char- 
acter as acomposition. But how is it possible that the style should be 
purely Altic, when the thoughts are so Un-Attic? What did the Attics 
know respecting many views of God and our duty, which are designated 
by the New Testament writers? Nothing at all. And in the expression 
of what lay beyond the circle of thought among the heathen Greeks, 
how could the Hebrew writers employ only pure Attic diction. 

Besides; had Pfochen and others proved the point which they labour- 
ed to prove, the argument, now drawn as above from the actual state of 
the New Testament style, for its genuineness would have been undone. 
What critic, acting simply as acritic, would ever be brought to credit it, 
that Hebrew men had written in a style purely Attic? As matters now 
are, all is well. The style is entirely congruous with the condition of 
the alleged writers. What a pity, one almost involuntarily is led to ex- 
claim, that so much time should have been wasted by the Purists, in or- 
der to prove what would have undone such an argument for the genu- 
ineness of the New Testament! 


678 NOTE II. 


Nore ὦ. Circumstantial and internal evidence in the New Testament 
of its genuineness. (p. 28.) 


The detail of this in pp. 183—28 is worthy of the most attentive con- 
sideration of the candid reader. It can hardly fail to strike him in a 
manner adapted to excite a deep interest in the subject. The Works of 
Paley, viz. his Horae Paulinae and his Evidences of Christianity, give 
the sum of this kind of evidence in a most persuasive and attractive 
form, and are worthy of diligent and attentive perusal. In Lardner, 
also (as quoted on p. 28), he will find very much to the same purpose, 
which is candidly and ingeniously propounded. Indeed, I consider the 
internal evidences of genuineness in the New Testament, as being, to 
say the least, quite as strong as those of the Iliad, or Aeneid, or of the 
works of Cicero, or those of Horace. In some respects they are even 
more so; for the reason that there are so many peculiarities in the He- 
brew state, circle of thought, action, and expression, that imitation of 
these books by foreigners would have been unspeakably difficult, or 
rather, quite impossible. 

The works of Paley on the Evidences of Christianity (which need 
not be here described), will perhaps prevent the republication among 
us of the works of Schmid and Less, which are mentioned at the bot- 
tom of p. 28. Yet I could wish, for many reasons, that the work of 
Schmid, in particular, might be translated by some adequate hand, and 
republished in our language. The author, Christian F. Schmid, wasa 
Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, during the later part of the last 
century, and his octavo volume (pp. 640) has relation to the Old T's- 
éament as well as the New ; and therefore jt covers ground in respect to 
which our present English literature is very defective. The main ar- 
gument is contained in a ‘Text, which comprises much less matter, how- 
ever, than the Notes. The latter embrace illustrations and confirma- 
tions of the text, and quotations in the orginal of all the passages se- 
lected from ancient writers, as proofs of the positions advanced. Asa 
compend of these testimonies, made up of innumerable documents 
brought together in this way, and of a running text which shews the 
drift and force of the argument and also of these documents, this book 
would be exceedingly valuable to students, who wish to see with their 
own eyes. A few of Lardner’s selections, which Schmid deemed irrel- 
evant, are omitted; and some testimonies that are omitted by Lardner, 
are added. Such a Thesaurus of this subject, translated and modified 
by judicious notes, would supply an important defect in our sacred lit- 
erature ; for very few can afford to purchase the works of Lardner in 
extenso, where the originals are also exhibited. Schmid is an example 
of multum in parvo. ‘This work was published in 1775. 

Of the two works (named in Note J, p. 28) of Professor Less, of the 
University of Géttingen and a contemporary of J. D. Michaelis, the 
latter is the more complete, extensive, and satisfactory. It is in dhree 
volumes, and a part of it (a very valuable one too) was translated and 
printed in England in 1804, by Roger Kingdon A M., of St. John’s 
College, Cambridge, who had been a resident in Germany. Less him- 
self had been for many years of his life, skeptical as to the genuineness 


GENUINENESS OF THE N. TEST. 679 


of the New Testament writings. He at length instituted a strict in- 
quiry on this subject, and his book is the fruit of his inquiry. He is 
quite rigid as to the admission of testimony; and no candid inquirer, if 
he has been disposed to be skeptical, can well demur to any evidence 
which he does admit. He excludes very many passages cited as testi- 
mony by Lardner and Schmid; and with all his severe scrutiny comes 
out at Jast with a most distinct and complete conviction of the genuine- 
ness of the New Testament in general. The Apocalypse seems to 
him, however, a book of somewhat doubtful origin and authority ; al- 
though he fully concedes its antiquity. The reason which seems to 
have most influenced his mind in making this conclusion, is, that the 
book is unintelligible. In what way, however, our inability to under- 
stand a book, can prove that a particular man did not write it, it would 
seem to be difficult to shew. In this respect, I think the worthy author 
has not displayed his usual tact and argumentative ability. Had the 
work of Eichhorn on the Apocalypse been published when he wrote, he ~ 
would probably have come to a different conclusion ; at least in _Tespect 
to the supposed impenetrable obscurity of the book. 

The work of Less as translated and published by Kingdon, and ably 
translated, too, might be republished in a moderate duodecimo or even 
18mo. [5 it not alarming to reflect, that some hundreds of thousands of 
worse than worthless books are published every year, and find purchas- 
ers and readers; while such a book as that of Less, conducted through- 
out on the rigid principles.of scrutiny, and adapted therefore to attract 
argumentative and skeptical minds, should go into oblivion, so that the 
English and American public at large scarcely know of its existence? 

The work of Jeremiah Jones, first published in 1726 in 3 vols. 8vo., 
and then republished at the Clarendon press at Oxford in 1798, on the 
New and full Method of settling the canonical Authority of the New 
Testament, etc., is a book replete with much interesting and useful 
matter. The main part of it is directed against spurious books, which 
in ancient times claimed a like place with writings of the New Testa- 
ment, and to which Mr. Jones applies certain tests that are adapted to 
shew the weakness of those claims. The third volume treats of the 
authenticity of the Gospels‘and the Acts of the Apostles. The Epis- 
tles and the Apocalypse are not embraced in his plan. The reader will 
find in this work of Jones, a somewhat extended account of all the spu- 
rious books that we have any knowledge of, with many extracts from 
them. The originals of such as are still extant, he may find at length 
in the recent work of Thilo, comprising the remains of this kind of 
Jiterature. 

Mr. Jones was minister of a dissenting congregation at Avening, 
Gloucestershire, in England, and is said by Lempriere to have died at 
the age of 31; which is scarcely credible, considering the extent of his 
literary investigations, and the Jabour which they must have cost him. 
Of this work Hug seems to have been ignorant. ‘The student will be 
well paid for consulting it, and for attentively studying the essential and 
argumentative parts of it. Like many other solid and excellent works 
of the last age, it has been nearly displaced by books of less valuable 
matter, but of more attractive form. 

May some powerful and patient critic speedily arise, who, by an at- - 


680 NOTE III. 


tentive study of all these works, extensive reading and study of their 
original sources, logical and persuasive method of thought and argument, 
and orderly and scientific arrangement of matter and neat simplicity of 
style, will make a book which will proffer to the student all that is solid 
and valuable in all the works that are here named and many others, in 
relation to this important subject ! 


Nore 3. Manner of quotation by early Christian writers, (p. 29.) 


If the reader should give full credit to the account here given by 
Hug, of the manner of quotation by the most ancient Christian writers, 
he would surely be led into an error. Take as an example the oldest 
~ of all, viz. Clemens Romanus. His quotations are almost innumerable ; 
yet he never names the book of either Testament, when he quotes. He 
occasionally names prophets, indeed, from whom he quotes. But then 
he calls their names as those of persons, and not as the titles of books, 
after the manner that we now practise. He often quotes with the for- 
mulas, γέγραπται, λέγει, εἶπεν 0 ϑεὸς, φησὶν ὃ λόγος ὁ ἅγιος, and the 
like; but nearly as often, particularly in respect to Old Testament 
books, he quotes without any formula atall. He quotes too with all im- 
aginable degrees of freedom and departure ijn some respects from the 
diction of the original; evidently quoting often from mere recollection, 
which at times is quite indistinct, then at other times accurate. Some- 
times he doubtless had the original before him ; but the cases of this na- 
ture are scarcely capabie of being determined, because exact recollec- 
tion would produce the same effect upon the accuracy of the writer. 
In many cases he evidently paraphrases the original or metamorphoses 
it, accommodating it to his particular purpose, and designing scrupu- 
lously to retain only what he deems to be the substance of the sense. 

As to the allegation of Hug, that the Old Testament is quoted by the 
early fathers with more accuracy than the New, I do not think there is 
any good ground for its support. I see no substantial difference, e. g. 
in Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, in the modes or exactness of 
quotations, with the exception that formulas which naturally introduce 
quotations, are perhaps somewhat more frequent in regard to passages ta- 
ken from the New Testament. Nothing is seemingly more apparent, than 
that they made their quotations usually from memory; the natural con- 
sequence is, that even in’cases where the fact of actual quotation is 
very apparent, yet exactness of diction throughout is not to be found. 

As to treating the historical books differently from what they have 
done the didactic ones. I knowof no foundation for this, excepting that 
along history in the Scriptures is of course summarily adverted to or 
given, while a proverb, or a maxim, or a precept, is often given at length 
because brevity permits it to be so given. 

The allegation under No. III., that “the Prophets are cited with di- 
rect reference to them,” has no other foundation, I apprehend, than what 
has already been suggested, viz. that the names of the prophets as per- 
sons are frequently mentioned, but not their names as the mere title of a 


MANNER OF QUOTATION. 681 


book. The allegation in No. 1V. that ‘the epistles are accurately 
cited,’ has, as I apprehend, no other foundation than what belongs sim- 
ply to the nature of the case. The Aistories in the Gospels are merely 
referred to usually, not cited atlength; but the didactic parts of the 
Gospels will not be found to be quoted [655 accurately than the Epistles. 

Nor does the representation of Hug seem to agree with itself. He 
tells us in No. IIL. that “the didactic writings of the Old Testament, 
are generally cited verbatim.” Yet he saysin No. V. that ‘ moral princi- 
ples and tenets are quoted, so that the thought only is regarded, and 
not the words.’ If any one should say, that the author means to affirm 
this merely of the New Testament, he is precluded from so saying by 
the affirmation under No. LV. that ‘the Epistles of the New ‘Testament 
are cited accurately.’ The truth is, as I fully believe, that the intelligent 
reader who attentively watches the matter of quotation in the early 
Christian writers, will soon come to the entire conviction, that they usu- 
ally quoted memoriter ; that there is no material difference as to the 
manner of the quotations, whether it be Old Testament or New; that 
they often compress not only narrations but other passages; that they 
often conjoin different Scriptures in the same paragraph; that they 
sometimes accommodate the language of any and all Scriptures to the 
particular purpose they have in view, and thereby make departures from 
the diction of the original; and finally, that there is no one formula of 
quotation which is uniform, none which of itself distinguishes what par- 
ticular weight the writer assigns to any quotation, none which is indis- 
pensable, inasmuch as the quotations are almost as often without any 
formula as with one. 

As to the usual manner in ancient writers of quoting the words of 
the Saviour as his (No. VI.), nothing would be more natural than this. 
The authority of the Saviour is supreme. To cite words as his, is at 
once to assign to them their highest claims, their paramount authority. 

All this, however, diminishes nothing from the weight and impor- 
tance of Hug’s argument in the sequel. In this, the fact, rather than 
the manner of quotation, is principally concerned. The fact is always 
to be judged of by general principles of quotation that were current in 
ancient times, and by the particular circumstances in each case, and the 
evidences of real resemblance to the original Scriptures. 


Note 4. Nature of the author’s argument in favour of the genuineness 
of the New Testament books, inrespect to quotations from 
- them. (p. 91.) , 


Hug does not enter at all upon the production of testimonies from wri- 
ters in the church catholic. He expects the reader to consult Lard- 
ner for these, and also the other writers named on p. 28. (See Note 2 
above). Taking it for granted that these testimonies are abundant and 
satisfactory, so far as any thing said by the friends of Christianity im its 
purer form is inne he proceeds in § 7 to produce evidence from the 


682 NOTES V, VI. 


remains of heretical writers in the second century, of the existence of the 
New Testament books in their present form at that period. ‘These tes- 
timonies, although not whdlly neglected by Lardner, Schmid, and oth- 
ers, are more critically and acutely treated of here by Hug, than by 
almost any other writer. 71 5 scarcely possible that the young reader, 
who is a beginner in critical study, should feel in an adequate manner 
the importance of the testimony thus acquired. “ Our enemies them- 
selves being judges,” is an appeal which has strong claims to enhance 
the credibility of a thing. If the opponents of the church catholic, 
and schismatics, still refer in their writings to the New Testament as a 
standard book, then we may well suppose it was generally so consid- 
ered. Andevenin cases where they in fact impugn it, or any part of 
it, this also shews the actual existence of that which is impugned. 

Such then is the nature and design of Hug’s testimonies in this sec- 
tion, adduced from Celsus, Tatian, Cassian, Theodotus, and others, 
most of whose remains are to be found only in fragments, presented in 
the works of their opponents. When the nature of this case and the ob- 
ject in view by Hug are fully before the reader, he will, I trust, peruse 
with much interest, what he might otherwise, perhaps, consider as dry 
and uninteresting. ‘The whole is drawn up with such studied brevity, 
and so little close regard to order and simplicity of arrangement, that it 
will require all the patience of the student, and tax all his powers of at- 
tention, in order fully to understand what the author has here written, 
and to profit by it. | 


Note 5. Credibility of the New Testament writings. (p. 64.) 


Besides what Paley, Less, Lardner, and many others have written 
with so much ability in respect to this subject, the reader will find a 
very useful and brief summary ina recent book of Prof. Schott of Jena 
(1830), entitled Isagoge historico-critica in Libros Nov. Test. Sucros, 
δῷ 128—133, with many notes comprising explanations and references 
to works of importance. The student should also by all means read 
the first volume of Rev. Thomas H. Horne’s Introduction, where he 
will find an extended and very useful summary of the arguments em- 
ployed in relation to this all important subject, and the literature which 
concerns it extensively noticed. 

I cannot help thinking, with Hug, that on the supposition of unbeliev- 
ers, viz. that the matter of the Gospels is not true, the character and 
doctrines of Jesus Christ are a greater miracle than any which they re- 
ject. Reinhard in his Plan, and Planck in his Urchristenthum, have 
urged this point with great power, and in my apprehension with unan- 
swerable arguments. 


Note 6. Classification of Manuscripts. 


On this subject the reader should be apprised, that discussion is by no 
means at an end, and that after all the ingenuity, labour, and learning, 


᾿ 


CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 683 


that have been exhibited, no real ¢erra firma on which we can plant our 
feet, has yet been taken possession of or even fully discovered. 

The theory of Hug is briefly this, viz. (1) That until about A.D. 
250, there was a κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, i. 6. caine Nee of the New Testa- 
ment writings, corresponding in the main with the older Latin versions, 
with the Codex Cantabrigiensis, and with the old Syriac version or Pe- 
shito and the more ancient fathers. 

(2) That about the middle of the third century, the defects of this 
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις becoming apparent to more critical readers, several un- 
dertook to revise and purify it. Hesychius engaged in this work, who 
was a bishop in Egypt; Lucian, a priest of Antioch in Syria, undertook 
a like task ; and Origen in Palestine did the same. The revised text of 
the first edition, Hug supposes to have obtained currency in Egypt; that 
of the second, in Syria, Asia Minor, Thrace, and Constantinople or 
Byzantium ; that of the third, in Palestine. He thinks that the old 
χοινὴ ἔκδοσις, as exhibited in the older Latin versons, still kept its 
place in the West; for certain it is, that Gelasius bishop of Rome 
(+ 496) prohibited the use of the Lucian and Hesychian recensions, on 
the ground that he supposed them to be corrupt; p. 117. 

(3) A third period begins, according to Hug, soon after the respec- 
tive recensions named above, and extends itself down to the present 
time ; during which various alterations from a variety of causes have 
been made in all these different texts. In ancient times, different re- 
censions were mixed together; and besides this, the κοινὴ ἐχδοσις 
would also come in for its share, with many possessors of Mss., in the 
correction and adjustment of them. From all these reasons combined, 
there is, in even the oldest Mss. now extant, more or less of mixture of 
the different recensions ; although some Mss. have predominant char- 
acteristics, which are plain and very visibly marked. 

There will be no question about the ingenuity, acuteness, and im- 
mense labour, exhibited in the briefly represented theory of Prof. Hug ; 
at least I think there can be none among intelligent and practised read- 
ers. Its ingenuity, and indeed speciousness, has in part called forth 
high expressions of admiration from many critics, and made some con- 
verts. But although the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις, as stated by him, must be 
substantially true, as even Griesbach and others concede, yet that amid 
such an endless variety of readings as must have sprung up from causes 
suggested by him, during two centuries after the writings of the New 
Testament were composed, all Mss. should be capable of classtfication, 
so as to make the κοινὴ éxdoore a distinct and separate family, easily 
distinguishable from all subsequent Mss.—who will venture to affirm 
this, and pledge himself to produce satisfactory proof? Origen says of 
the Greek Mss. in his time: ‘‘ The difference has become really great, 
both from the carelessness of copyists, and from the arbitrary conduct 
of those to whom the correction of them is entrusted; as also from 
emendations, additions, and omissions made by many according to their 
own judgment, ” (Cited by Hug, p. 87). How can it be, then, that there 
is but one character common to all these, and that this is so plainly 
marked that it will enable us distinctly to classify them, so as to separate 
them from the later families of Mss., if indeed there are such 7 

As to the second part of Hug’s theory, viz. the different recensions by 


684 NOTE VI. 


Hesychius, Lucian, and Origen, it is denied in whole or in part, by 
some of the most able critics. Griesbach denies the existence of any 
recension of the New ‘Testament by Origen, and thinks that what Hug 
names as such, is only a branch of the Lucian recension; Meletem, 

» p. LVIII. seq. Matthaei, the celebrated editor of a critical edition of 
the New Testament, even denies in toto the existence of any such re- 
censions as Hug has described, and adopts the Byzantine Mss. as his 
only safe guide. The class which consists of such as the Codex Be- 
zae, the Codex Claromontanus, and others of the like nature, he names 
editio scurrilis ; and he applies no softer epithets to those who pay 
deference to them. But although there is a degree of extravagance in 
his positions, yet it 1s in fact somewhat doubtful, whether the recensions 
of Hesychius and Lucian ever obtained any extensive circulation in the 
countries where they were made. Jerome (Praefat. in quatuor Evangg.) 
says, respecting these recensions: “‘ Praetermitto eos codices, quos, a 
Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa 
contentio, etc.” The intimation in these words most clearly is, that 
the Hesychian and Lucian recensions were confined to a narrow cir- 
cle of usage (paucorum) ; and disapprobation of this usage is plainly 
signified by asserit perversa contentio. If Jerome is in the right, it 
would seem that Hug has attributed a great deal too much influence 
‘over the general state of the New Testament Mss. after the middle of 
the third century, to the labours of Hesychius and Lucian. 

Nor should it be unobserved by the critical reader, that the extensive 
and permanent circulation of the Lucian recension at Constantinople 
and in Thrace, which Hug and others have assumed, is a matter of 
great doubt, and, in view of some testimony that is extant, quite an im- 
probability. Eusebius testifies (De Vita Const. Mag. I. 4. ο. 36), that 
the emperor Constantine required of him to cause fifty copies of the 
New Testament to be transcribed, for the use of the churches at Con- 
stantinople. Now the reverence which Eusebius had for Origen is well 
known, and is every where most abundantly testified by him. That the 
copies would be made, therefore, from such Codices as were approved 
by Origen and used by him, there can scarcely be a doubt. But what 
were these? Origen’s numerous works clearly shew that his Codices 
of the New Testament were of the Alexandrine hue; for he was edu- 
cated, and spent the former part of his life, at Alexandria. Nor has 
Origen, in any of his works, apparently quoted a different text from that 
which seems to have been predominant at Alexandria. If all this be 
allowed, as I think it must be by those who are conversant with this 
subject, then it would seem to follow, that from the time of Constantine 
and Eusebius, the Mss. at Constantinople must have been of the Ori- 
genian, 1.e. Alexandrian cast ; and so, after all, the Byzantine Mss. are 
to be ultimately referred to those which Origen, and after him Eusebius, 
employed. 

The passage in Jerome (ad Matth. 24: 36), on which Hug mainly 
relies to prove a distinct recension by Origen, is hardly capable of prov- 
ingso much. Jerome says, that ‘‘in some Latin Codices, neque filius is 
here added to the text; but,” he adds, ‘‘ this is not contained in Grae- 
cis, et maxime Adamantii et Picrii exemplaribus. Schott, De Wette, 
and others, suppose it to be sufficient here to understand the ez- 


CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 685 


emplars of Adamantius (i.e. Origen) and Pierius, as meaning those Mss. 
which these distinguished individuals sanctioned and employed, and to 
which they gave currency. And indeed, if the whole be compared with 
what Origen says (on Matthew in Vol. III. p. 671, ed. de la Rue), this 
would seen) to be altogether a probable interpretation of his words. Ori- 
gen takes occasion to speak of his critical edition of the Septuagint, and 
his emendation of it by means of asterisks and obelisks, and then he 
says, (the Latin translation of him only is here preserved): ‘‘ In exem- 
plaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine peri- 
culo non putavi.” If then his judgment was, as it here seems to be, 
that he could not without danger undertake to correct the Mss. of the 
New Testament; and if, as even Hug concedes, he did not undertake 
to do this until extreme old age and as his last work ; is it probable that 
he would, at such a time, and against his own mature judgment, ex- 
ecute a work which is least of all adapted to the employment of a su- 
perannuated man? On the whole the probability cannot be well made 
out. 


The threefold recensions made by Griesbach are well known, viz. the 
Alexandrine or Oriental, the Occidental, and the Byzantine. Hints in 
Bengel’s Introductio ad Crisin N. Test. and in Semler’s Vorbereitung- 
en zur Hlermencutik, seem to have first led him to this. The text 
of the occidental recension, as he supposes, may be found in the most 
ancient Latin versions, in Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ambrose, 
Augustine, etc.; also in the Mss. of the Gospels, D. 1, 13, 69, 118, 
124, 131, 157; in the Mss. of the Epistles, ἢ. E. F.G. Its character 
is exegetical; it contains glosses and periphrases, and hebraizes in ἃ 
high degree. 

The Alexandrine recension, he thinks, is found in Clemens Alex., 
Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyrill Alex., Isidorus Pelus., and oth- 
ers; in the Memphitico-Coptic, Philoxeno-Syrian, Ethiopic, and Arme- 
nian versions; and also in the Mss. of the Gospels, B. C. L. 33, 102, 
106; and in those of the Epistles, A. B. C. 17, 46,47. Its character- 
istics are, higher grammatical purity and correctness of diction. 

The Byzantine or Constantinopolitan recension is found, as he avers, 
in the Greek fathers of Asia Minor and the neighboring provinces, from 
the fourth to the sixth century; in the Gothic and Slavic versions; in 
the Mss. of the Gospels, A. E. F.G. H. S.; and as to the Epistles, in 
the Mss. of Moscow. 

To the Peschito, Chrysostom, and Mss. P. Q. T., he attributes a 
mized text; and ina considerable degree to more than twenty Mss. 
more. 

This formal and definite division was attacked with great vehemence 
by Matthaei, and substantially doubted and impugned by Eichhorn, 
and others. It has occasioned great debate among critics ; especially 
so, as Griesbach estimates the value of a reading very much by the 
classes of recensions which support it, rather than by the number of 
witnesses. 

Besides these opponents on the continent of Europe, Griesbach has 
had some powerful ones in England. Dr. Laurence (now archbishop of 
Cashel), attacked it with great vehemence and acuteness in his Remarks 


686 NOTE VI. 


on the Classification of Mss. adopted by Grriesbach, Oxf. 1814. In 
1815, the Rev. F. Nolan published his Inquiry into the Integrity of 
the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament ; in which 
he has laboured to overthrow several of Griesbach’s positions, and not 
without success. He, however, comes out at last, with an Egyptian, a 
Palestine, and a Byzantine family or recension of Codices ; which seem 
to differ in nothing very material, except as to some supposed metes and 
bounds, from the three recensions of Griesbach. Schott in his Isagoge 
declares also, that the effort of Griesbach to establish his classification, 
isa failure; and so Scholz, in his Curae Criticae, and in his Proleg. 
ad edit. Nov. Testamenti. 


The division of Scholz himself, in the work last named, is into the 
Alerandrine and Constantinopolitan recension. ‘To the former he as- 
signs the copies in Egypt and in the West; also the Coptic, Latin, and 
Ethiopic versions, and the ecclesiastical writers of those regions. ΤῸ 
the latter he assigns the copies of Palestine, Asia Minor, Syria, orien- 
tal Greece, specially Constantinople, the Philoxenian, Gothic, Georgi- 
an, and Slavic versions, and the ecclesiastical writers of those regions. 
To the latter he gives an almost unbounded preference. 

But in amalgamating the Alexandrine and Western Mss. together, he 
has done not a little violence to both. Moreover, taking the fact as 
true, which Eusebius has related in respect to his making out fifty 
copies of the New Testament for the churches at Constantinople, in the 
time of Constantine ; and the fact also that Eusebius is known, by the 
quotations in his works, to have given a preference to the Alexandrine 
copies ; how can the superiority or even the discrepancy of the Con- 
stantinopolitan class of Mss. in respect to the Alexandrine, be so definite- 
ly made out? 


Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament, divides Mss. 
into Asiatic, African, and Mized. He has treated the subject with a 
degree of skill and moderation, which it would have been well if many 
other writers could have imitated. 

The result of all is, as the reader may now well see, that no ¢erra 
firma is yet won. So judges De Wette, who is no ordinary judge; so 
in substance Schott also, in his Isagoge. Of course the estimation of 
the value of readings, which proceeds from classification merely or 
principally, is not to be confided in; and consequently not a few of the 
decisions of Griesbach, who has gone far in criticisms of this kind, may 
be justly subjected to revisal, and some of them, doubtless, to reversal. 

With such facts before him, the critical reader of the New Testament 
should look well to it how he trusts himself implicitly to the guidance of 
any one of the so-called critical editions. Much land yet remains to be 
possessed. The labour of collation is, as yet, very imperfectly perform- 
ed ; and that of quotations by the fathers from the Bible, as yet very im- 
perfectly estimated or examined. The remarks of Hug, certainly a 
good practical scholar, as exhibited above, are a voucher for the correct- 
ness of this affirmation. 


MODES OF WRITING, ETC.. 687 


Note 7. Materials of Mss., modes of writing, stichometry, punctua- 
tion, editions, etc. (p. 148 seq.) 


Few, if any, of the various Introductions to the New Testament will 

‘ be found so instructive, well-grounded, and satisfactory as Hug is upon 

these several points. ‘Thereader who wishes for more upon them can 

easily consult Marsh’s Michaelis, Eichhorn, Schott, Haenlein, Bertholdt, 

De Wette, Horne, etc. Particularly interesting, in Hug, is the account 

of stichometry, and the consequent gradual rise of the modern punc- 
tuation. 

The account of the principal Mss. and editions of the New Testa- 
ment (pp. 156—199) will be found as ample as is necessary for a stu- 
dent in general ; and great pains have been taken by the author in re- 
spect to accuracy. This part of the book, after a general perusal, does 
not need to be studied, like some other parts, but to be reserved for 
special consultation, when the hature or importance of some prominent 
Ms. or critical edition of the New Testament becomes a question of 
special interest. 

Hug has brought down his account of critical editions no lower than 
the second edition of Griesbach, Vol. I. 1796, Vol II. 1806. Of this 
celebrated edition, Vol. I. has been reprinted with valuable additions and 
corrections, and with great care, by Prof. David Schulz, Berlin, 1827. 

Dr. C. Knapp, of Halle, printed a critical text of the New Testa- 
ment in 1797, in which he mainly followed the maxims of criticism laid 
down by Griesbach, and in general exhibited the same text as that pub- 
lished by Griesbach. Yet there are departures from it, in some impor- 
tant readings; and the editor every where has bestowed great pains on 
the examination of readings, on the punctuation of the text, on the ac- 
centuation, on the mode of dividing or paragraphing the text, and in 
the selection of important various readings for exhibition to the reader. 
This work has had a wide circulation in Germany, the fourth large 
edition being printed in 1830. 

A rival work to this, furnished with a Latin translation, at first 
mostly a copy of Griesbach’s text, but afterwards departing (in the third 
edition) in many places from it, was published by Schott, Professor of 
Theology at Jena, in 1805; again, in 1811; and athird time, in 1825. 

A small stereotype edition was published in 1820 at Leipsic, edited 
by that masterly New Testament critic, the late J. A. H. Tittmann of 
the University at Leipsic. His judgment as to the text, is always wor- 
thy of consultation and deference. 

In 1824, the late Prof. Vater of Halle published an edition of the 
Greek Testament, in which the text of Griesbach and Knapp is revised, 
various readings are given, with critical and exegetical annotations, and 
indexes of various kinds; in many respects a useful edition to young stu- 
dents, as there is very considerable critical and exegetical matter exhib- 
ited in it. 

In 1821, Gratz (of the Roman Catholic Church), at Tiibingen, pub- 
lished a new edition comprising the Complutensian Greek text, the Vul- 
gate text of 1592, with readings from the third edition of Robert Ste- 
phens, and from the editions of Griesbach and Matthaei. 


688 ‘NOTE VII. 


Very recently a new critical edition of the Greek text has been pub- 
lished at Berlin, 1831, by C. Lachmann. The object and plan of this 
are described by the editor, in the Theol. Studien und Critiken, 1830, 
pp. 817—845. It isin 12mo, without preface, stereotyped, with a fair 
impression and on good paper, and has been highly commended in some 
of the leading reviews of Germany. From the notice which the most 
recent interpreters of the New Testament in that country take of it, it 
would seem to be highly estimated and in great demand. 

To a Syllabus of the various readings of the Textus Receptus where 
these differ from his own text, which the author suffixes at the close 
of the volume, he has prefixed a few editorial remarks, from which it 
would seem that his judgment about the value of readings differs in no 
small degree from that of Griesbach and his followers. ‘‘ The editor,” 
says he, “‘ has no where followed his own judgment, but the usage of the 
oriental churches. So often as he has found this not to be uniform (con- 
stantem, consistent), he has, as far as possible, guided himself by the 
agreement of the Italian and African churches. Where he has found 
discrepancies between the sources which have become widely diffused, 
he has indicated this, partly by including the words in a parenthesis, 
partly by noting them in the margin.” ‘The diversities of the Recep- 
dus from his own text, are, as has been intimated above, noted at the 
end of the volume. 

The reasons for such a course in forming his text, the editor has giv- 
en at length in the Periodical mentioned in a preceding paragtaph. 
It would seem, therefore, by the present demonstrations of public opin- 
ion as to the criticism of the New Testament text, that it is inclining, 
after all, toward the direction which Matthaei long ago endeavored to 
give it, and for which Scholz, in his new critical edition of the New 
Testament, strenuously contends, viz. toward a reception of the orten- 
tal Mss. as being of the highest and best authority. 

The edition of Scholz, just mentioned, is yet unfinished. The first 
volume, in 4to, was published in 1830, and contains only the four Gos- 
pels with copious Prolegomena. In these the editor endeavors to estab- 
lish the credit of the Constantinopvlitan recension as greatly superior 
to the Egyptian and Occidental ; which last two classes he amalgamates 
into one, under the name of Alexandrine. This work seems to have 
found but little favour in Germany, although the learning and diligence 
of the author are commended very liberally by such writers as De 
Wette and Schott. In England more interest has been taken in it ; and 
efforts have been there made, in order to enable the editor to go forward 
with his second volume; which, it seems, has been likely to fail for 
want of patronage. Solidity, acuteness, and stability of mind and 
judgment, seem not to be leading and prominent characteristics of this 
critical editor. 

Lachmann, on the other hand, has been encouraged by the success 
of his small critical edition of the New Testament, to engage in the ar- 
duous labour of a new and large critical edition, with full apparatus. 

_ The reader who is unaccustomed to the studies of lower criticism, 
‘1. 6. that which occupies itself with the establishment of a pure text, 
can hardly conceive of the difficulties that press upon this subject, and 
the labour necessary tosurmount them. ΤῸ no part of sacred litera- 


VERSIONS OF THE N. TEST. 689 


ture have we more occasion to apply the striking declaration of Aulus 
Gellius, that truth is the daughter of time, than to that of criticism in 
respect to the text of the New Testament. After a century of strenu- 
ous efforts by minds of the first order, we are still in an oscillating po- 
sition, as to many things relative to this subject, and as to not a few 
readings of the New Testament. Yet we should call to mind, and 
gratefully remember too, that these in general are not points which are 
essential either to Christian doctrine or practice. A pure text is indeed 
a desideratum of an important nature; but there may be several con- 
junctions, prepositions, or other words, less or more than in the present 
text, or even different from it, without much affecting our duty or our 
happiness. There is a time, in a course of sacred study, when almost 
every student feels a desire to plunge somewhat deeply into lower criti- 
cism, or the investigation of the state of the text; but by (ἀπά by he 
comes to learn, that most of this belongs rather to the manner than the 
matter of the text; and he is then apt to become too indifferent about 
it. The subject is surely one of deep interest. Every candid man will 
commend all well-directed labours in respect to it; but the experi- 
enced critic will soon Jearn not to be totus in illis, nor to feel that it is 
more important to decide whether a δέ or a γάρ should stand or fall, than 
to inquire what rule of faith or practice the text contains. 


Nore 8. Versions of the New Testament. (p. 199 seq.) 


The principal interest which these can possess, as to matters of crit- 
icism and interpretation, arises from two sources ; viz. (1) ) They may 
have preserved the readings extant in the Greek Mss. from which they 
were made; some of which, of course, must have been very ancient, 
inasmuch as some of the versions are very early. (2) Some of the ver- 
sions may afford exegetical help, in respect to hla which are ob- 
scure and difficult. 

It is easy to illustrate and confirm:these two propositions, in a few 
words. We will suppose that the Peshito or old Syriac version was 
made, (as seems most likely), in the latter half of the second century, 
or near the commencement of the third. The person who made it 
must have been skilled in the Greek of that day, and therefore in the 
Greek which is substantially the basis of the New Testament diction, 
and which was then spoken in Palestine and Western Asia in general. 
This being then a living language, idioms that are now obscure and 
difficult to us, may bave been quite intelligible and easy to him. These 
he might often express in the Syriac, so as to make them very intelligible 
to a reader of the present day, who well understands this language. 
The text, moreover, which lay before him, he would generally, if hé 
well understood it, express so as to shew us what the original diction 
probably then was. In such acase we should have, as we in fact do 
have in the Peshito, a witness for the ancient text, and a help to the 
sense, in one and the same version. 


Of all the monuments of antiquity now extant, or at - least of all yet 
7 


690 NOTE VIII. 


discovered, I regard the version of the Peshito as the most important in 
respect to the establishment or verification of the true Greek text. It 
precedes in age, by several centuries, any Greek Ms. that we now have ; 
it was confessedly made with great skill and ability ; the Hebrew colour- 
ing of the New Testament rendered it easy, for the most part, to be trans- 
lated intothe Syriac, which is an idiom so kindred ; it has been exempt 
from all the criticisms and tamperings of the Alexandrine or any other 
western school of criticism; and from the recensions of Hesychius, 
Lucian, or Origen (if he made one); it has come down to us from the 
primitive ages in a channel entirely different from that in which the 
common Greek text has descended; it appears, from the comparison of 
Mss. so far as this has gone, to have suffered less than is common from 
the variations made by scribes; and it is therefore a witness above all 
exception, as to its general testimony, for the fidelity and accuracy with 
which the Greek text has in the main been preserved. No monument 
of antiquity possesses, therefore, more to excite critical interest, or even 
exegetical, than this. The student who is familiar with it, cannot well 
entertain a doubt of the early canonicity of the New Testament books 
in general, and of the importance which the Christian churches in the 
primitive ages attached to them. 

The 2d Pet., the 2d and 3d of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, are 
wanting in the original Peshito, and have been supplied, in modern edi- 
tions of it, from another version. This circumstance serves to shew, 
that the version in question was made so early, that the New Festament 
Canon, as a whole, was not yet completed. 

After all, however, too much stress should not be laid by the eritic or 
interpreter on this or any other version; because in all versions the 
translator occasionally finding himself embarrassed for want of proper 
or adequate diction, and unable to give a litera} version because of the 
nature of the idiom into which he is translating, will (not to say must) of 
course indulge more or less in paraphrastical expressions, which some 
times fail to convey the exact impression designed to be made by the 
original, and of course must fail in giving us the means of discovering 
its exact diction. On this subject, a Programm of Winer, entitled de 
Versionibus N. Test. usu critico caute instituendo (Erlang. 1823), de- 
serves to be carefully studied. Worthy to be read, also, on the subject 
of the Syriac version, is Weber, de usu Vers. Syr. hermeneutico, Lips. 
1778, 8vo. Also Glocester Ridley, de Syr. Vers. Indole et Usu, Oxon. 
17615 reprinted inWetstenii Libellus ad Crisin, etc., Nov. Test., Halle, 
1766. Of the general nature and use of all the Syriac versions, the 
veader will find an account in Storr, Observatt. super N. Test. Versi- 
onibus Syr., 1772; also in Adleri, Versiones Syriacae, 1791, and in all 
the Introductions to the New Testament. 

While I have a full conviction of the high importance of this most 
excellent of all the ancient versions, and feel that the study of it gives a 
degree of conviction to an inquirer’s mind, who is seeking for evidence 
of the genuineness and antiquity of our present New Testament text, 
which nothing else perhaps can give, I should still think it hazardous to 
undertake the critical emendation of the text in general, from this or any 
other version. ‘T'ake the facts, for example, exhibited by Winer, viz., 
“The Peshito always puts ἡμῶν (our) after the word Lord; instead of 


VERSIONS OF THE N. TEST. 691 


αὐτός, αὐτοῦ, the proper name to which it refers is generally repeated ; 
the particles εἶτα τότε, ἐδοῦ, superfluous participles such as λέγων, ἀπο- 
κρεϑείς, etc., are usually omitted; πᾶς is often arbitrarily put in or left 
out; and ὡς, ὁμοίως, etc., often omitted.’ With such facts in view, how 
could we conform the Greek text throughout to this version, without 
abusing the rights of criticism. 

The student may be entirely satisfied of the well founded nature of 
these cautions, by taking any of our best English translations of classic 
authors and comparing them with the original; e. g. that of Spelman 
compared with the Greek of Xenophon. While he has happily transfer- 
red to the English the spirit of the original, yet if acritic some centuries 
hence should undertake to decide, as to minute things, what the text of 
Xenophon was a half century ago, by this English version, he would 
surely find it to be a difficult task, or rather he would find it altogether 
impossible. And so with the Peshito, or any other ancient version. The 
general evidence derived from the text is most satisfactory and conclu- 
sive. But the minute and unimportant parts of diction have not always 
been preserved, because they have not always been regarded. A witness 
to the actual presence of a person in a particular place and at a par- 
ticular time, may be altogether a true and credible witness, although 
he may not remember how many, or what, were some small appendages 
on that person’s dress, or whether he fastened his shoes with buckles or 
a silken thong. 

To conclude; the reader will find Hug’s account of the Peshito to 
be, on the whole, the most critical and satisfactory of any which are 
contained in the Introductions to the New ‘Testament, or indeed else- 
where. The recent Codices of the Peshito, brought by Dr. Buchanan 
from Hindostan to England, and compared by Prof. Lee for his admi- 
rable and beautiful edtion of the Syriac New Testament, 1816, under 
the auspices of the Bible Society in England, will answer a very impor- 
tant purpose in the establishment of the text of this deeply interesting 
relic of antiquity. Whether the promised Collationes of these oriental 
Mss. have yet been given to the public, is tome unknown. The execu- 
tion of such a work is important to criticism. It is earnestly to be 
hoped that it should not fail. 


In regard to the second Syriac version, i.e. the Philoxenian as it is 
named, from Philoxenus or Xenaias bishop of Hierapolis, who caused it 
to be made by Polycarp, one of his χωρεπίσκοποι, it has for its basis 
the old Peshito, but is often discrepant from it, inasmuch as it is a liter- 
al, and one may say slavish, imitation of the Greek original; so much 
so, as often to violate the proprieties of the Syriac idiom. Still, this 
very circumstance renders it important as a witness to the state of the 
Greek textin the year 508, when it was composed. 

No where will the reader find an account of the various ancient ver- 
sions, more to his satisfaction in general, and to his instruction, than in 
the present work of Hug. This isa kind of literature in which he 
seems to take much pleasure, and which he has prosecuted to very good 
purpose. In particular, the important version called the Vulgate, is 
here described with a minuteness and an accuracy, which entitle the 
author to the thanks of every student of sacred literature. He may. 


692 NOTE Ix. 


here learn how much dependence is to be placed on a version, which, 
notwithstanding the ingenious suggestions of Hug (p. 279) respecting 
the meaning of the Council of Trent (in Sess IV. Decret. 2), and the 
liberal exegesis which he would fain give to their decree, and indeed 
must give in order to defend his own critical views, is after all made the 
editio authentica of the Roman catholic church, and thus placed above 
the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. With the decree in ques- 
tion before him, how could any Romanist, in a dispute of a theological 
nature, appeal ultimately to any thing but this authenticated arbiter, viz. 
the Vulgate, as determining what the original Scriptures must mean 7 
Hug, indeed, fully sees the weakness and folly of a claim to decide 
this point, by any council; but his relation to the Romish church, 
does not permit him to speak of it in a direct manner. He has, how- 
ever, striven to do away all the real force of the decree in question, by 
his interpretation at the bottom of p.279. He avers, that the decree 
of the Council is “no prescription of doctrine,’ and that ‘it has refer- 
ence to the circumstances of the times in which it was issued.” So 
much to be sure, is true, that it is not literally in itself a rule of doc- 
trine ; but it prescribes the ultimate authentic appeal, in all cases of 
doctrinal controversy ; and so far are the Romish church from confining 
the authority of the Vulgate to ‘the times” in which it was authorita- 
tively adopted as the only standard, that down to the present hour it is 
read and circulated as their only authentic Bible. Versions in order to 
be popular, must be conformed to it. 

By mistake Thomas of Harkel, p. 218 and elsewhere, is called Thom- 
as of Charkel; which mode of spelling the name rightly represents the 
sound of it in Hug’s German text, (ch being a strong guttural, alinost 
like hh), but gives a mistaken notion of the true name to the English read- 
er. The Thomas in question was of ‘H/oazieca (Lat. Heraclea, or more 
usually Harclea), a town in Syria, not far from Bambyce or Hierapolis 
(as the Greeks named it), or Mabug (asthe Syrians called it); Cellarius 
Orb. Ant. IT. p. 360. Hierapolis seems to have been given as a name 
to Mabug, by the Greeks, because this city was the metropolis of the 
worship of Astarte or Ashtoreth or Derceto, the fabled goddess of the 
heathen Syrians. 


Note 9. Principles of Criticism. (p. 301.) 


The assumption by Hug, in this section and the sequel, that all is 
now settled as to the great Jeading principles of lower criticism, i. e. 
that criticism which is employed in the correction of the text, is some- 
what surprising, considering the present state of the matter, and indeed 
its state ever since Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and others, have been 
labouring upon it. We have seen above how little union there has been 
and is, in respect to the classification of Mss. ; and yet, on this assumed 
classification, and (as it appears by p. 302) on the basis of his own clas- 
sification, the worthy author takes it for granted that all difficult ques- 
tions are at anend. The ground taken by Lachmann, most recently, 


PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 693 


and which seems to have the general voice of Germany in its favour, is 
certainly a very different one from that which Hug has endeavoured to 
establish. But after what has been said in Note 6, more need not be 
here said. It is enough merely to repeat in this place, that but little 
terra firma has yet been won, in this department of investigation. The 
actual internal state of a Ms.; the evidences which itself proffers from 
its own condition, of correctness and of pains-taking by the copyist ; 
would go much farther, I think, in the mind of an unbiassed person, in 
determining its weight and value, than the circumstance of the country 
to which it belonged, or (I had almost said) of the age to which it be- 
longed. Could not, for example, a copyist at Constantinople, have be- 
fore him an Alexandrine or an Italian Codex for his exemplar? And so, 
mutatis mutandis, of Alexandria, Rome, and other cities and countries 
respectively. Could not a copyist of the tenth century, moreover, have 
before him a Codex of the fifth century ? Would he not, of course, aim 
at obtaining the oldest and best that he could procure? Surely he 
would, unless he could obtain such copies of more recent date, as he 
might be sure were conformed to the oldest and most accurate. How 
then can we judge of the worth of Mss. merely by their age? An ex- 
act copy.in the tenth century of a Codex belonging to the fifth, is to all 
intents and purposes the same thing as the ancient Codex itself; so 
that the sources of the later copies, seems to be the most important ques- 
tion in respect to them. As to the country, after all that has been said 
concerning this particular, it weighs but little with me. ‘The present 
tone of criticism seems to demand, that the Oriental or Constantinopol- 
itan class of Mss. should have the preference. Yet how much depend- 
ence can we place upon the ability of men to find out what this class is, 
so far as it is distinct from other classes, when we are assured by Euse- 
bius himself, that fifty copies of the New Testament. were required of 
him by Constantine, for the use of the churches in his capital? Euse- 
bius, it is well known, was a most devoted friend to the fame and merits 
of Origen ; and his works, like those of Origen, contain quotations from 
Scripture, which are set down to the account of the Alexandrine class 
of Mss. Supposing now that these fifty copies were made out and sent 
to Constantinople, as doubtless they were, then would not the Mss. of 
Constantinople and the neighbouring region afterwards exhibit the Alez- 
andrine text? Circumstances like these, surely cast a shade over the 
whole business of making accurate practical distinctions, at the present 
day, in the classification of manuscripts. 

As to the rules or principles of criticism laid down in ᾧ 147 seq. 
(p. 303 seq.), they are perhaps no where else better expressed, or more 
guardedly formed. Yet there are not a few of them, even as here ex- 
hibited, which are to be taken cum grano salis. E.g. ‘‘ That reading of 
one recension is to be preferred, which agrees Jeast with another recen- 
sion.” The reason given for this is, that in later times one recension 
was frequently interpolated from another. The fact is in itself probably 
true; but in ascertaining whether a Ms. belongs to a particular recen- 
sion, (which is the object of the rule just cited), would it not be an 
a@ priori assumption, that any particular expression is to be preferred to 
another one, from the very circumstance that it disagrees with a certain 
recension? How can it be assumed, in any particular case, that a Ms. 


694 NOTE ΙΧ. 


is Alexandrine, because it disagrees with the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις, or rather, 
because it disagrees with the so-called Byzantine class? Or why should 
this disagreement be a ground of preference as to a particular reading, 
unless we could determine a priort when and where'the Mss. should 
disagree, in order to be classed with a different recension? Assuming 
the fact, ‘that we could make out that Ms. A. belongs to the Alexandrine 
class, and Ms. D. to the occidental class, and that “these two classes are 
different in more or less respects; still, how, in any particular passage, 
there should be a presumption a priori in favour of their disagreement— 
it would be difficult to shew. Analogy will not guide us here. The 
number of cases in which A. and D. agree, immeasurably exceed those in 
which they differ. The presumption, therefore, lies fairly on the side of 
agreement. If then we conclude in favour of a reading in D. which dis- 
agrees with one in A., merely because the Mss. belong to different classes, 
we proceed on stounds of argument like the following, viz. A. and B. 
sometimes differ : ergo the presumption is always in favour of a reading 
which represents them as differing. Would this be sound logic? Sup- 
pose I should argue on the other side thus: A. and B. accord in immeas- 
urably the greater number of cases; ergo when they seem to differ, the 
presumption is against the reading by which they are made to differ. 
This logic, which would indeed be unsound enough, seems to be at least 
as well founded as the other. The truth plainly is, that where Mss. of 
primary value disagree, the only possible ground of estimating a correct 
reading in either, is analogy of the writer’s style, the nature of the Greek 
idiom and of the particular case to which the passage relates, and the 
external testimony from ancient quotations. But to say that any read- 
ing in one so-called recension, is to be preferred “‘ because it differs most 
from the reading of another recension,” would seem to be laying down 
a singular and embarrassing, if not dangerous principle of criticism. 
Again, Hug (p. 304) says: ‘‘ That reading of a particular recension 

is the genuine one, which accords best with the laws of the Greek Jan- 

uage, or is most elegant.” He doubtless means by this, that particu- 
larly Hesychins in his recension, and in a greater or less degree Lucian 
also in his, helped to remove not a few of the original Hebraisms of the 
New Testament, and to bring it nearer to the standard of classic Greek. 
Such readings, then, in these respective recensions, as stand on the side 
of the classical Greek, are to be regarded as the more probable ones, so 
far as the character of the particular recension is concerned. This is 
all well enough, perhaps; but what shall we do with the sequel’? In 
the very next sentence Hug tells us, that “the recensions took their rise 
from the «oev7 ἔκδοσις of their country, so that when there are various 
readings, that is the most probable which agrees most with the κοινὴ 
ἔκδυσι. Yet this κοινή is characterized by Hug himselt, as contain- 
ing much more Hebraism than the recension-copies; nay, one of the 
very marks of a recension-codex is, that it mitigates the Hebraisms. I 
do not, however, well see how these two things can stand together. 
“That ‘reading i in a recension is most probable, which agrees most with 
the xouvn ) ἔκδοσις;; and yet this ἔκδοσις i is confessedly full of Hebraism. 
What next? ‘That reading is genuine in a recension, which accords 
best with the classic Greek.’ I wot not how these propositions can be 
well combined. 


PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 695 


On the next page (805) we are told again, that “if the Mss. of the 
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις agree in a harsh and rude expression, their agreement on 
it is of more weight than the agreement of the recensions in one more 
strictly elegant and grammatical.” This of course is taking it for 
granted, that the New Testament writers are prone to harsh and rude 
expressions, and that the presumption of course is always in favour of 
them. This would be going quite far enough in presumption, to say the 
least. Such a principle or rule is plainly expressed in a manner too 
absolute or unqualified. If the socalled rudeness or harshness were 
mere Hebraism, I should be inclined to apply the rule ; if it were not, 
I should consider it as by no means binding upon my judgment. 

Once more; Hug says, that “it is a universally admitted principle, 
that we should incline to that reading which is encompassed by exeget- 
ical difficulties.” It is well that he “afterwards qualifies this, by admit- 
ting that there must be sufficient testimony in the Mss. to shew that the 
difficult reading did not originate from a mere blunder of the scribes. 
Otherwise the rule would lead us to monstrosity in criticism. Εἰ g. in 
15. 9: 2, ‘‘ Thou hast increased the nation [i.e. the Jewish people] ; 
πῶσ maa NS, lit. thou hast nor increased their joy ;” and yet, in 

the very next clause it is said, “ They rejoice before thee with a joy like 
that of harvest-time, as they rejoice who divide the spoil,” i.e. with 
great or unusual joy. Now the middle clause here, as literally rendered, 
directly contradicts the latter clauses, and likewise the tenor of the whole 
passage. ‘I'here can be no doubt, therefore, as there is none among most 
critics of the present day, that Nd, in the present Heb. text, has been 
carelessly written for 15, both of them being read with the same sound, 
lo. But if 5> be the correct reading, then the sense of the second clause 
is, ‘‘ Thou hast increased its [the nation’s] joy ;” which accords en- 
tirely with the context and design of the whole passage. 

Here, then, if we prefer > (not) because it is the more difficult read- 
ing, we make either nonsense or incongruity inthetext. And this is a 
case, too, which Hug’s exception does not touch ; for here the Heb. Mss. 
are altogether predominant in favour of NX>. How can we bind our- 
selves, now, in such bonds as these? The nature of the case, and the 
congruity of any reading with the evident design of the writer and scope 
of the passage, will plainly weigh more with the mind of a discerning 
reader, than all the accidental and external circumstances or witnesses. 
Yet this privilege of judging must be exercised with real and with much 
caution ; and the design of the writer must be so plain, that there is 
hardly room for any doubt among honest and intelligent minds. 


What Hug says in § 150, might be qualified by many remarks. ‘‘ The 
recensions,” he says, “ maintain a far higher authority than the existing 
Mss. of the κοινὴ ἔχδοσις." Why should they? One object of recen- 
sions, as expressly stated by Hug, was to get rid of Hebraisms and un- 
grammatical and harsh expressions, etc. “Why should this make them 
move authoritative? Plainly it would make them less so. Hug, how- 
ever, puts their authority of course on another ground. He says, that. 
the authors of the recensions undoubtedly collated several Mss. of the 
κοινή. The recensions, then, are grounded on the κουνη ἔχδοσις, and 
this gives them weight. Why then have not the κοιναὶ } Zxdoaess, which 


696 NOTE xX. 


have been copied and come down to us in this way, as much authority 
as the text gathered from them and which has descended in the same 
manner? Who can vouch for the critical acumen and fair dealing in 
all cases, of the authors and copyists of the recensions ? 

Many other remarks of a similar character might be made upon Hug’s 
rules of criticism; which surely need to be qualified, and are to be re- 
ceived with much caution. That caution is, 1 am pleased to say it, 
suggested by Hug himself, on p. 397,§ 151. He admits that we must 
be guided principally by a minute study of each particular writer, in 
all his particular characteristic developments of sentiment, diction, use 
of particles, grammatical construction, etc., when we come to describe 
what most probably belongs, or does not belong, to the text of any par- 
ticular passage. He admits that critical feeling or sensibility also may 
be something in this matter. And to these two sources or means of 
criticism, I should trust more in the determination of a reading, in re- 
spect to which the Codices differ, than to the weight of all the Codices 
in favour of this or that mode of reading, so far as these are simply con- 
sidered merely as Codices. 

All those rules of Hug, which have for their basis a practicable and 
actual classification of Mss., and which assign peculiar weight to some 
in consequence of belonging to a particular class, I must regard as little 
better than a petitio principii, in the whole matter of New Testament 
criticism. Lis sub judice; and while it is so, and is confessedly and 
plainly so in the judgment of so many impartial and enlightened critics, 
why should we speak, and argue, and lay down rules, as if it were not 
so? 


Nore 10. Explanations inserted by the Evangelists in the text, for the 
sake of rendering it intelligible to their readers. (p. 321). 


The characteristics which Hug here gives of the various Gospels, 
generally speaking, may perhaps be true. But when he states that ‘it 
is not the custom of Matthew to insert any thing by way of explana- 
tion, where Hebrew readers did not need it,’ he is surely in an error, if 
the passage in Matth. 1: 23 be genuine, viz. ᾿διεμανουήλ᾽ ὃ ἐστε μεϑερ- 
μηνευόμενον, μεϑ' ἡμῶν ὁ ϑεοός. Did the Hebrews of Palestine, then, 
need to have Δμμανουὴλ translated in order to understand it ? 

Those who maintain that the original Gospel of Matthew was written 
in Hebrew, and that the present is a mere translation of it, would 
doubtless reply, that this clause has been added by the translator. But 
Hug, who does not accede to this view of the original language of 
Matthew’s Gospel, has offered no solution of the difficulty which seems 
to be thrown in the way of his hypothesis by such a clause; about 
which, I may add, there is no variety in Mss. or fathers, which deserves 
any regard. 

, But this is not all. Matthew repeats the words of Jesuson the cross: 
Ai! ηλὶ ! λαμὰ σαβαχϑανί, and then adds the translation into Greek, 
1. 6. tour ἔστε Θεὲ μου! ϑεέ μου! ἱνατίμε ἐγκατέλιπες ; Was it pos- 


———— νν--- 


SUMMARIES MADE BY MATTHEW IN HIS GOSPEL. 697 


sible that a Jew needed to be told what the Hebrew words in question 
meant? Surely not. If Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, it would 
seem of course to follow, that these explanations must have been insert- 
ed by his translator. If he wrote in Greek, then it is his custom some- 
times to insert explanations which a Hebrew reader didnot need. And 
this would be a different position from that assumed by Hug. Compare 
also, Matt. 27:8; why did not the writer say here, ” AnehOarpece, as in 
Acts 1: 191 

In Matt. 27: 15, the writer states, that “‘the governor was wont to 
release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.” Did a Jew need 
te be told this? Again; in Matt. 27:33 the writer says, “ they came to 
a place called Golgotha, that is to say, A place of ascull.’ Dida Jew 
need to have this translated? Once more; in Matt. 28: 15 it is said: 
“This saying is commonly reported among the Jews, until this day.” 
Did a native of Judea need to be told this? 

The peculiar characteristics, then, which Hug has so positively at- 
tributed here to Matthew, are more than doubtful. No other Gospel, 
except perhaps John’s, resorts oftener to explanations. Is it not better 
to read and observe for ourselves, than to take the declarations of oth- 
ers upon credit, about matters like these ? 


Nore 11. References to the eile of Old Testament prophecies in 
the Gospels. (p. 312, § 3.) 


The reader may judge for himself how much reality there is in this 
statement, from the following comparison ; in which I have selected on- 
ly those passages where the writer has expressly referred us to the Old 
Testament Scriptures, by a ἱνὰ πληρώϑη or ἃ ὅπως nAnowdn, ete. 

Matthew, 1: 22. 2: 15. 2:17. 2:23. 4:14. 8:17. 12: 17. 13: 35. 
21: 4. 26: 56. 27: 9. 27:35; in all, twelve instances. 

Mark, 14: 49. 15: 28; only two cases. 

Luke, 4: 21. 21: 22. 24: 44; in all, three cases. 

This shews, indeed, a great difference in the habitudes of the differ- 
ent writers, as to expressly referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. 
It would seem to argue, at least, that Matthew had specially to do with 
those who drew their views of the Messiah from ancient scriptural in- 
terpretations. 


Nore 12. Summaries made by Matthew in his Gospel. (p. 313 ὃ 4.) 


I do not deny that what Hug has here stated is specious; nor evem 
that in most cases it seems to be substantially correct. Take for exam- 
ple the collection of parables, in chap. ΧΠΙ. XIV. XVIII. XX. XXI. XXII. 
xxv. Yet even here, these are uttered on so many different occasions, 

5 88 


698 NOTE XVIII. 


that we are led to hesitate respecting the full application of the princi- 
ple laid down by Hug. But when he applies this same rule of compar- 
ison to the Sermon on the Mount, and says that ‘ it is now admitted that 
this discourse is fragmentary,’ he says what is indeed true as to some 
critics; for there are some who agree with him in respect to this point. 
Others, however, there are, who think quite differently in respect to the 
Sermon on the Mount. The reader will find an ample and able dis- 
cussion of this matter, in ‘Tholuck’s Commentary on this Sermon, 
which has been recently published, § 2. His judgment is the reverse 
of Hug’s; and such, I apprehend, will henceforth be the judgment of 
almost every unprejudiced and critical reader. The only. arguments 
which seem to have any weight, are, that Luke’s account of the Sermon , 
on the Mount is so much more brief than that of Matthew: and that 
there are various declarations in the Sermon exhibited by Matthew, 
which are scattered here and there over the Gospel of Luke. Tholuck 
has done full justice to these points; and he has shewn how little force 
such arguments can have in the determination of the question, Whether 
the Sermon on the Mount is one whole, or only made up of fragments ? 
The substance of his argument is, that proverbial declarations, common 
maxims, etc., contained in Matthew’s account. of the Sermon on the 
Mount, were and’ must have been not unfrequently repeated on other 
occasions. 

That strict chronological order was not intended to be followed by 
this writer, is affirmed by Hug; and, asI fully believe, with good reason. 
Well does he compare the manner of Matthew’s Gospel, with the Mem- 
orabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. ‘There is, in many respects, a strik- 
ing resemblance. 


Nore 13. Time when the Gospel of Matthew was written. (p. 313. § 5.) 


Of all the circumstances which Hug mentions as indicating the late 
period at which the Gospel of Matthew was written, (he places it on the 
eve of the destruction of Jerusalem, 1. e. about A.D. 70), there seems 
to be not more than one or two which wil] bear examination. When 
Matthew (27: 8) says: “Wherefore that field was called the field of 
blood, ἕως τῆς σήμερον"; and again in 28: 15 says: “‘ This report was 
spread abroad among the Jews, μέχον τῆς oOnuevov” ; it is natural to 
conclude, thatthe writer would have resorted to such a mode of expres- 
sion, only after a considerable time had elapsed, subsequently to the 
death of Jesus. However, 20 or 25 years would seem to be sufficient 
to account for this. 

It is possible, that the circumstances related in Matt. 27: 15 respect- 
ing the governor’s releasing a prisoner on the feast-day of the Jews, 
might have been inserted by the writer some 20 or 25 years after Pilate 
had ceased to be governor, in order to remind the Jews of an almost 
forgotten custom. But I do not interpret the matter as Hug does. I 
suppose this to have been a custom common to all the Roman govern- 


i.) Pa ae 


TIME OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 699 


ors of the Jews, and that Matthew notes this circumstance in order that 
all his readers might be advertised of it; some of whom, as we must 
naturally suppose, he had reason to presume were ignorant of it, be- 
cause they were not familiar with the usages of the Jewish government. 

The amount of what is said by Hug concerning the case of Zacha- 
rias, the son of Barachias, is, that Matthew has committed an error in 
the narration. Instead of representing Jesus as saying (in respect to the 
future), ὃν φονεύσετε x. τ. A, i, 6. whom ye will hereafter kill, Matthew, 
who, as Hug supposes, wrote after the murder had already taken place, 
falls out (as grammarians say) of his construction, and represents Jesus 
as declaring a past event, viz., ὃν ἐφονεύσατε %. τ. λ. 

That such a view of the subject is adapted to give satisfaction to the 
mind, can hardly be admitted. First of all it may be said, that the 
Zacharias mentioned by Josephus was a politician, and an influential 
man, and was taken off by the Zealots, not because of his religion or pi- 
ety, but because of his political influence and his wealth. Moreover this 
same Zacharias, when accused by the Zealots before the Sanhedrim, 
was acquitted by them, and was murdered afterwards by only two of the 
most daring Zealots. Besides all this, the murder of Zacharias was 
only one event in a long series of the like ones. After this event, Go- 
rion, Niger, and other distinguished men were destroyed in the same 
way. All thesecircumstances serve to shew, that Jesus could not have 
referred, in his address to the Jews, to this Zacharias; for the one whom 
he presents, is one who had been a martyr in the cause of truth and of 
piety. But, what is more than all, a reference to a murder to be com- 
mitted by the Jews some forty years after the address of Jesus to them, 
could not be a matter in point between the speaker and those whom he 
addressed. It must be a murder well known to them, and of which 
they would have a distinct recollection, the moment it was mentioned. 
And besides all this, as the murder of Abel was the first in a series de- 
scribed by the Saviour, so the murder of Zacharias must be the das¢ in 
the series indicated. This could not apply, then, to the Zacharias 
named in Josephus, whose death was yet future, and which, when it did 
happen, was by no means the last in the series to which it belonged. 

An interpretation fraught with so many difficulties, therefore, as this 
of Hug, cannot be safely admitted ; not to mention, that the inspiration 
of the Evangelist is virtually called in question by it, as it shews him to 
have committed a palpable oversight; and one, I may add, respecting 
what seems to have been a very plain matter and well known even by 
the populace. 

Nor do I think the solution of the difficulty to be much bettegs, which 
is proffered by Theile in Winer and Engelhardt’s Kritisches Journal (II. 
p. 415 seq.) ; which is, that Matthew, meaning to refer to Zacharias 
the son of Jehoida the priest, who, in the reign of Joash, was stoned 
to death in the court of the house of the Lord (2 Chron. 24: 20,21), by 
a lapse of memory calls him the son of Barachias; thus confounding 
him with Zachariah the son of Barachiah the author of the book of 
prophecy which bears this name, or else with Zachariah the son of Jeb- 
erechiah, mentioned in Is. 8:2. Although this solution seems to be 
allowed by Schott in his Isagoge (p. 81), and by Bretschneider in his 
Lexicon (v. Ζαχαρίας), and to be suggested as one mode of solving the 


700 NOTE XIV. 


difficulty even by Mill in his New Testament (p. 52), yet it appears to 
me to be quite improbable. It seems much more natural to suppose, 
that the Zachariah mentioned by the Saviour was a dager martyr than 
the one mentioned in 2 Chron. 24: 20, and one whose history tradition 
had preserved. It is no objection to this, that Josephus is silent respect- 
ing such an individual. How many other things he passes over in si- 
lence, which we know to have occurred, need not be suggested to the 
critical examiner. 


More improbable still should I deem Hug’s exegesis of βδέλυγμα 
τῆς ἐρεμωώσεως, as exhibited on p. 915 seq. It is somewhat surprising, 
that on p. 315 the worthy author exhibits the verse which contains these 
words, as being part of the address of Jesus himself to the Jews; and 
on p. 316 as being an apostrophe of the evangelist. Where this apos- 
trophe stops, he does not tell us, unless he means that we shall limit it 
to the words which he has quoted.” But this is impossible; for the 
words that follow in a long sequel, are indissolubly connected with the 
words which he regards as an apostrophe. 

Then again, to construe βδέλυγμα ἐρεμώσεως as meaning the Zeal- 
ots, who obtained possession of the temple and profaned it, is, 1 appre- 
hend, giving a totally different turn to the words, from that which Dan- 
iel, and after him the Saviour, meant to give. I take it to be altogether 
probable, if not certain, that a foreign power is designated by these 
words, who is thus in effect called the horrible destroyer. What else 
can the proverbial saying in v. 28, respecting the eagles, mean, unless 
it is paronomasiac, and has reference to the eagles painted on the Ro- 
man standards? 


The general, almost the universal, voice of antiquity proclaims, that 
Matthew was the first in order of all the Evangelists. It is only late 
writers, however, who name a specific early period; e. g. Cosmas In- 
dicopleustes (Cent. VI.) names, as the period when this Gospel was com- 
posed, the time when Stephen suffered martyrdom ; Theophylact (Cent. 
XI.) the eighth year after the ascension; Euthymius Zigabenus (Cent. 
XII.), the same; and Nicephorns (Cent. XIV.), the fifteenth year after 
the ascension. The most probable time, all things considered, seems to 
be somewhere between A.D. 50 and A. Ὁ. 60. More exactly it cannot 
ibe fixed; nor even here with any very definite certainty. 


Nore 14. Gospel according to the Hebrews. (p. 320, § 9.) 


The development of this subject by Hug has some good traits. The 
striking part of the subject is well presented. But the reader is left en- 
tirely at a loss how the Ebionites differed from the Nazarenes, or what 
was the connection of these two sects; or in fact whether they were ac- 
tually two. On the contrary, Hug even suggests (p. 326), that ‘‘ both 
[sects] were accused of the same Jewish fanaticism, etc.” The author 
seems, therefore, either not to have read, or not to have approval the 


᾿ j - 


Ἢ» ΕΝ ᾿ V4 Re ip lA ny h-3 Ae Ch ofvjr—e φλ.,χ fy. 4 


, 
Ζ ae , . a fp 
4%, ve νει, / iret ait], “Ζι σα AOA +t pe. 
a , ὦ 


— 


ῃ 
7 


΄ 


—— 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS. 701 


recent able essays on the subject of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which 
have appeared in his country. 

From these it would seem now to be made out, that the great body of 
Jewish Christians in Palestine, after the destruction of the Jewish capi- 
tal by the Romans, continued to hold the necessity of observing the 
Mosaic ritual. But the extent to which this observance should go, was a 
question about which a difference of opinion arose among them. ‘The 
more liberal and enlightened, especially those who lived at and near Je- 
rusalem in the first part of the second century, embraced the opinion, 


that the law of Moses was obligatory only upon Jewish Christians, not ἡ 


upon Gentile ones. Another party held to its wniversal obligation, even 


in its most rigid form. The former were called Nazarenes, the latter ¢ 


Ebionites. The Ebionites of course rejected the writings of Paul, be- 


cause they supersede all the ritual of the law. hey moreover held τ 


that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, on whom Christ descended at 
his baptism; and in whom he dwelt. Another feature of their creed is 
said to have been, the expectation of a civil and temporal millennium 
under the Messiah. But this is recently called in question by Credner 
in his Beitrage. 

The Nazarenes on the other hand, held to the miraculous conception 
of Jesus, and that the Gentiles should be freed from all obligation to the 
ritual law. 

It would seem that both these sects had a Gospel according to the He- 
brews, or (as it is sometimes called) a Gospel of the twelve Apostles, 
a Gospel of Peter, or κατὰ Mordaiov; which appears to have been 
current among them ata very early period, even before they had sepa- 
rated from each other. After their separation each party seems to have 
added to it, or detracted from it, according to their respective tenets and 
purposes. The Nazarenes used, according to Epiphanius, the fuller or 
more copious recension ; the Ebionites abridged this work, by removing 
the genealogy in Matt. τ. and also some other passages, and inserting oth- 
ers more consonant with their tenets. But whether this apocryphal Gos- 
pel wasoriginally that of Matthew written in Hebrew, as some suppose, 
and mutilated or interpolated by these sects so as to suit their own 
views; or whether it was the Greek Gospel of Matthew (if that were 
the original one), translated and either abridged or interpolated, as oth- 
ers suppose ; or whether, as others are inclined to believe, the basis of 
the whole production was the work of another author than Matthew, 
who merely imitated him and took many excerpta from him; these are 
questions which do not appear, as yet, to be fully cleared up to the satis- 
faction of all the learned. ‘The latter opinion seems to me quite the 
most probable one. At all events, it is clear that Origen and Eusebius 
considered the Gospel according to the Hebrews as spurious, νοῦϑον ; 
Orig. Comm. in Johan. IV. p. 63, ed. La Rue; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 
III. 25. 

On the whole, one thing seems to be quite plain, viz. that no argu- 
ment of any validity can he derived from the existence and circulation 
of this spurious Gospel in the Palestine dialect of that time, which will 
have any important bearing on the question, In what language was 
Matthew’s Gospel originally written? ‘he differences between the τὸ 
xad ‘EBoatous εὐαγγέλιον, and our present Gospel of Matthew are so 


702 NOTE XIV. 

striking, in so far as we are able to make them out from the remains of 
the former, that we cannot assume substantial identity between the two 
without great hazard of error. The question as to the original lan- 
guage of Matthew’s work, must stand therefore on another basis, i. 6. 
be settled, if this can be done, by other means than these. 

The reader is referred, for more extensive information, to Lange, Die 
Juden-Christen, Ebioniten, und Nicolaiten, der apostolischen Zeit, Leip. 
1828. Van Heyst, Diss. theol. de Judaeo-Christianismo etc., Lugd. 
Bat. 1828. Olshausen, Die Echtheit der vier Canon. Evangelien, etc., 
Koenigsb. 1823, p. 30 seq. Gieseler, Die Nazarder und Ebioniten, in 
Archiv ftir alte und neue Kirchengeshichte, Von Staudlin und Tzschir- 
ner, IV. 1819. Credner, Ueber Essder und Ebioniten, in Winer’s 
Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft. Theologie, 2 heft, 1827, 3 heft, 1829. 

This last author (Credner) has recently published a work entitled 
Beitrige zur Hinleitung in die biblischen Schriften, Halle, 1832, in 
which he has gone very deep into the early evidences of the state of the 
New Testament text in the second and third centuries. ‘The main ob- 
ject of the first volume (no more have come to hand), is to shew, that 
there was a different Gospel from any of our present canonical ones, in 
circulation among the early Hebrew Christians of Palestine, one which 
he calls a Petrine Gospel. He does not seem to mean by this, that Pe- 
ter was actually the author of it, but that it had credit as being suppos- 
ed to have been approved by him, or at any rate as containing senti- 
ments like those which he exhibited when Paul contended with him be- 
cause of his avowing Jewish notions respecting the law; Gal. 2: 11 
seq. Astothis Petrine Gospel, Credner labours through his volume to 
shew, that it was the one made use of by Justin Martyr, in the Clementine 
Homilies, in the Clementine Recognitions, in Tatian’s Diatesseron, and 
in the Ayjovyua Πέτρου; many citations ‘also in the works of Clemens 
Alexandrinus and of Origen, seem, as he hints, to accord with this. 
The Codex Bezue also, i. e. the Codex D. of Griesbach and others, with 
great ability and acuteness he labours to shew, must have been copied 
from a recension which was greatly modified, or in many parts conform- 
ed, to the Petrine Gospel, or to some peculiar Gospel current among 
Jewish Christians. 

So far as our present topic is concerned it is sufficient to say, thathe 
is fully of the opinion, that the Luayyédvov καϑ' “AB oasovs, which was 
in use among the Nazarenes and Ebionites, was a book entirely dif- 
ferent as to its origin from our Gospel of Matthew ; ; and different also 
from the Knovywe Πέτρου or the Μυαγγέλιον Tlécaov. At the same 
time, by far the greater part of the Petrine Gospel or the Gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews actually resembled our three first canonical 
Gospels, and particularly the Gospel of Matthew ; and so the quotations 
from them often agree. Yet there are additions and detractions in 
these apocryphal Gospels, which savour of the heresy of the Docetae, 
and give a different turn to some, sentiments in the canonical Gospels 
which are peculiarly evangelical. 

The whole book, whatever may be thought of the solidity of the au- 
thor’s positions, is highly distinguished for learning and critical acu- 
men ; and if its main positions should prove to be well grounded, it will 
change the whole face of criticism in regard to the early state of our 


Og Oe Ee, =, So, 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS. 703 


New Testament text, and throw much that has been adduced as evi- 
dence of it, as it now exists in our present recensions, entirely into the 
back ground. Forexample; the author labours, at great length and 
with much acuteness, to shew that Justin’s quotations are all from a Pe- 
trine Gospel, and not from our canonical ones. If this be true, it would 
follow of course that the quotations of Justin cannot be appealed to as 
evidences of the state of our canonical text. But in respect to the very 
numerous quotations from Justin, occupying 58 octavo pages, the au- 
thor assumes a principle of reasoning which needs to be well discussed 
and more thoroughly considered, before it can be allowed in all the lat- 
itude in which he has applied it, viz. the principle, that wherever the 
quotations of Justin differ from our canonical Gospels, there it is clear 
he must have had another Gospel from which he quoted, that differed 
from ours; and wherever the quotations of Justin agree with our ca- 
nonical text, that isevidence merely of the sameness in many respects 
between the Petrine Gospel which he used and our present Evangelists, 
but not evidence that he quoted from the canonical Gospels. My own 
persuasion at first view, is, that this is assuming a great deal too much ; 
and that the agreement in Justin is so immeasurably predominant over the 
disagreement, that I can well solve any difficulty which the latter presents, 
by attributing it to memoriter quotations.* And as ἃ voucher for this, 
I would appeal to Justin’s quotations from the Old Testament, and to 
those of Clemens Romanus also, where the same phenomena are on all 
sides apparent. Why should we excogitate new reasons for such diver- 
sity in quotation, when the old ones are sufficient? Or why adopta 
rule in respect to New Testament quotations, which will not apply to 
the Old Testament ones? 

Prof. Credner’s book, however, is one of deep interest to the critic. 
The second volume (not received) is designed to give an account of the 
Greek Versions of the Old Testament, current among the Christian 
Churches from A.D. 150 to A.D. 250, with special reference to the Gos- 
pels. ‘The third volume (of its publication I am not aware) is to con- 
tain discussions respecting the origin or genetic rise of the Gospels, the 
dialect in which they are written, the authors of the Gospels canonical 
and apocryphal, etc.; a work that must be full of interest, when in such 
hands as those of Credner. And this will be true, whether the theory 
he adopts be right or wrong; for in whatever direction he moves, he 
never makes an idle or insignificant movement. I can scarcely doubt 
that the criticism of the New Testament will be much modified by it ; 
at least this will be the case, if we can judge by the specimen already 
before us. 

But to return more directly to our main object; the question, what 
was the vriginal language of Matthew’s Gospel, is one which is open for 
investigation, independently of any of the apocryphal Gospels current 
in the Hebrew language among the Jewish Christians of early times. 
It remains to be seen, whether there is a probability that Matthew could 
and would have written his Gospel in Greek. The 10th section in 
Hug sheds some important light on this part of our inquiries. It can 
scarcely be doubted, after reading and well examining this, that a know- 


704 NOTE XV. 


ledge of Greek, such as was attained by all classes of men in a popular 

way, viz., by hearing it spoken, and having occasion more or less to ' 
employ it, was widely diffused among the inhabitants of the larger 

towns in Palestine. The scattered residents in small villages and coun- 

try places, could hardly have occasion to be much conversant with 

Greek; and therefore we cannot naturally suppose them to have been 

well acquainted with it. Accident or curiosity, however, would of 
course lead now and then a person even in: such places, to obtain a 

practical knowledge of it. More than this would seem hardly probable ; 

and more need not be supposed. 


Note. 15. Original language of Matthew's Gospel. (pp. 339 seq.) 


Asevery critical enquirer may well be expected to feel some special 
interest in this subject, I would subjoin a few remarks in addition to 
what Hug has said in §§ 8—12. 

On pp. 318 seq. the reader will find the leading testimonies of the 
ancient fathers, on which dependence has been principally placed, in 
order to prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, i. 6. in the 
Palestine dialect of his time, which was a mixture of ancient Hebrew, 
Chaldee, and Syriac. = era 4.22.0 

The leading writers in modern times, who have defended this propo- 
sition, are Simon, Mill, Michaelis, Weber, Elsner, Bolten, Adler, Cor- 
rodi, Storr, Haenlein, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Schmidt, Olshausen, Cave, 
Harwood, Owen, Campbell, and A. Clarke; to which we may also add 
Grotius, Bellarmin, Casaubon, Walton, and Tillemont. 

On the other side of the question, viz. in favour of a Greek original, 
are Erasmus, Paraeus, Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, 
Beausobre, Basnave, Wetstein, Rumpaeus, Hoffman, Leusden, Masch, 
Vogel, C.F. Schmid, Gabler, Paulus, Jones, Jortin, Lardner, Hey, 
Hales, and, among living authors, Hug, Schott, and De Wette (in his 
latest Einleitung). 

Guerike at Halle, and Dr. Townson in England, suppose Matthew to 
have written ἔσο originals, the one Hebrew and the other Greek. Beng- 
el long ago said: Quid obstat, quo minus idem [Matthaeus] Graece 
eundem librum, eodem exemplo scripserit.”” Bengel means to say that 
Matthew may have written both in Hebrew and in Greek, on the same 
Ms. ; Gnomon Nov. Testamenti, p. 2. _ 

From an attentive survey of the ancient testimony, as cited by Hug 
(p. 318 seq.), it is plain that there was a tradition widely diffused, in the 
early ages, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Yet froma 
more minute examination of this tradition, it would seem to be quite 
probable, that the declaration of Papias (cited on p. 318) was the prin- 
cipal thing which gave rise to it. Irenaeus had great faith in the dec- 
larations of Papias; as Hug has shewn, and as the manner in which 
Irenaeus speaks of him shews. F'rom these two early fathers, the report 
concerning a Hebrew original naturally spread wide abroad. The value 


ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 705 
of it, however, must be estimated, as it seems to me, by the original 
testimony of Papias. 

Eusebius, who in Ecc. Hist. III. 39 produces this testimony, himself 
calls Papias aman πάνυ Gulxgov τὸν νοῦν, ἱ. e. akind of simpleton. 
Still, this might not injure the credibility of his testimony as to a mere 
matter of fact. But if there was already a translation of Matthew’s 
Greek Gospel into Hebrew; or if there was already in circulation the 
εὐαγγέλιον Πέτρου, or (to give it another name) the εὐαγγέλιον nad 
“Ff oaious, which gospel was doubtless in circulation among a certain 
class of Judaizing Christians, and was often named zuta Mardhaiov 
and zara anoorodoug by the early writers, and which indeed bore 
many strong resemblances to the canonical Gospel of Matthew ; then 

was it very easy for this witness, being πάνυ ourxuos τὸν νοῦν as he 
seems to have been, to be misled, while he was at the same time very 
honest and upright i in his testimony. 

There is only one other early testimony besides those produced, 
which seems to standonadifferent basis. It isthe passage of Eusebius 
in Rec. Hist. V. 10, in which he speaks of Pantaenus as ‘ having gone 
to India (probably he means southern Arabic), where he found that 
the Gospel of Matthew had been circulated, being left there | by Barthol- 
omew, one of the twelve apostles, and existing ἐν αὐτοῖς ‘EBoatov 
γράμμασιν ; [which he brought back with him’ ne But in regard to this. 
story, Eusebius commences it by saying: λόγος εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν τὸ 
κατὰ Π͵ατϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, i. 6. report says, etc., or there is a report, 
etc. Language like this he could not well be supposed to employ, in 
case he viewed the matter as a well- -grounded certainty. Of course a 
writer resorts to an expression of this nature, only when he does not 
mean to be considered as standing voucher for the truth of the thing 
which he is about to relate. He may even actually consider this thing 
as probable, or regard it as improbable ; but by such a mode of express- 
ing himself he avoids giving his own opinion upon it. 

The clause in brackets above, is not to be found in the original of 
Eusebius ; but it is added by Rufinus, and also by Jerome. It asserts, 
however, what is an utter improbability ; for how can we suppose that 
the Hebrew original of Matthew was brought out of southern Arabia 
(India) to Esypt, by Pantaenns, and yet that Origen should say nothing 
on this subject, nor Clemens Alexandrinus; the celebrated and favourite 
pupil of Pantaenus himself, say a word about such a matter? The thing 
seems to be fairly out of question. 

We seem to be left, then, in our ultimate resort, to the testimony of 
Papias, from whom the story of a Hebrew Gospel by Matthew origina- 
ted, and was successively handed down to the other fathers, throngh 
Irenaeus. The question now remains: Do the circumstances of the 
case conspire to render such a Gospel probable 1 

Hug has shewn, amply and I should think conclusively, that Greek 
was very extensively spoken in Palestine, during the apostolic ages. 
Circumstances which are noticed in Note 14 above, serve to shew, that 
Matthew can not well be supposed to have had only Jewish readers in: 
view, when he wrote his Gospel. ‘The explanations which he gives of 


certain things, would be superfluous to Jews brought up in Palestine ς ἡ 
and these only continued to speak the Hebrew language of those times. 


706 NOTE Xv. 


ep 

That Palestine readers in general would not be excluded from the priv- 
ilege of reading his Gospel, provided it were written in Greek, would 
seem to be nearly certain, not ΠΗ from the facts detailed by Hug in 
§ 10, but from Acts 21: "40. 22: 2, where, although the multitude of 
Jews surrounding Paul testified their satisfaction at being addressed 
by him in the Hebrew languave, yet the natural implication of the 
whole narrative is, that they expected he would speak to them in Greek, 
and that they would have understood him in case he had done so. But 
it was more in the spirit of a Hebrew to address them in the Hebrew 
tongue ; and so they gave him the more ready audience because he did 
thus. 

After the almost endless confusion and obscurity which exists in the 
older essays on this subject, by reason of conjectures respecting the 
εὐαγγέλιον zat? “Πιβραίους, εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ἀποστόλους, εὐαγγέλιον 
Πέτρου, and the so-called εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Mardaiov, current among 
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, there seems at last to be some lighi spring- 
ing up, which promises to τς our way clear. Credner has: shewn in 
his Bettrdge above described, that these various appellations are in all . 
probability but names of one and the same work, somewhat interpolated, 
or altered, or mutilated, by the different sects among Jewish Christians, 
and that the work was current among the more strenuous Judaizers es- 
pecially, in the Hebrew language of the day; see particularly pp. 363 
- 414 of Credner’s work. Whatever may be the extent which we may 
rationally attribute to the Greek language in Palestine, yet we cannot 
with probability assume it as a matter of fact, that all the common peo- 
ple were acquainted with it. Even if they were, there would be good 
reason still to believe, that the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who held 
themselves aloof from Christians whose sympathies were with those of 
Paul on the subject of Jewish rites and ceremonies, would not have deem- 
ed it decorous or proper to make use of writings as sacred, which existed 
only in the Greek language. On every ground, the vernacular language 
of the Jews would naturally be deemed preferable; for it was more in- 
telligible, it was more sacred. 

Hence the εὐαγγέλιον Πέτρου", a work probably of the apostolic age, 

possibly one to which Luke himself adverts in the commencement of 
his Gospel, was early translated. I say translated; for the evidence 
produced by Credner (p. 455 and elsewhere) serves to shew satisfacto- 
rily that the Hebrew copies were a translation from a Greek original. 
E. g. the Greek proper name in Matt. 27: 16, ϑασῥαββᾶν, the Hebrew 
Gospel of the Nazarines translates (according to Jerome, Comm. in 
Matt. 27: 16), with the sense of filius magistri eorum ; which proper 
name, of course, the translator must have supposed was derived from 
ji ae instead of being the usual Hebrew name NAN 73, 1. 6. 
υἱὸν διδασκάλου. There seems to have been no room for mistake here, 
to a Hebrew who was writing in his own vernacular dialect. ‘The sense 
therefore given to βαραββᾶς or δαρῥαββᾶὰς is plainly one, which indi- 
cates the mistake of a translator as to the etymology of a Greek word. 

Very early then there was current among the Judaizing Christians a 
gospel written at first in Greek, and afterwards translated for the use of 
Jewish readers into the Hebrew of the day ; which from its resemblance 
to our canonical Matthew, and from the fact that it was more generally 


ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. [O07 


current in the second and following centuries in the Hebrew language, 
was usually named by other Christians who believed with Paul, or (in oth- 
er words) by the church catholic, εὐαγγέλεον κατὰ Π͵ατϑαῖον. Of most 
of this we are altogether certain from the testimony of Jerome. In his 
book De Viris Illustribus, cap. 2, he says : “Evangelium quoque, quod ap- 
pellatur secundum Hebraeos, et ame nuper in Graecum Latinumque 
sermonem translatum est ; quo et Origenes saepe utitur, etc.” From 
which it appears, that Jerome, in his time, did not know of, or could not 
procure a Greek copy ; for then the work of translating this would have 
been superfluous. But that there were copies of this nature in circula- 
tion, seems to be clear from the fact which Theodoret states, viz. that he 
procured a large number of copies of the Diatesseron of Tatian, who 
seems to have used the Gospel of Peter as his basis, which were in cir- 
culation in his diocese, and gave to the owners canonical Gospels in 
their stead; Haeret. Fab. I. 20. 

The passage in Jerome, which is the plainest and most direct that he 
has any where exhibited, is in one of his latest works (Contra Pelagi- 
um, 3. 2), written in 415, four years before his death. It runs thus: 
‘In evangelio juzta Hebracos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, 
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, 
secundum apostolos, sive (ut plerique autumant) juzta Matthaeum ; quod 
et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca.” Again, in his Comm. in Matt. 
12: 13 he says: “Quod [evangelium secundum Hebraeos} vocatur a 
plerisque Matthaei authenticum.” In his book De Viris Illust., cap. 
3, he says, that ‘ there was a copy of this gospel in the library at Cesa- 
rea, and that he had also obtained one from the Nazarenes in Beroea, a 
city of Syria.’ This was doubtless the one from which he made his 
translation into Latin and Greek. 

The way seems now to be open for explaining how there came to be 
so widely diffused a report among the ancient Christian fathers, respect- 
ing an original of Matthew’s Gospel being extant in the Hebrew lan- 
guage. The εὐαγγέλεον κατὰ Mardaior, or evayyehov Πέτρου, or 
εὐαγγέλιον κατ᾽ anoatddovs, or εὐαγγέλιον zat “APoatovs, (all differ- 
erent names of what appears to have been one and the same work dif- 
ferently modified in various hands, as E. F. Schmidt, in his Hist. antig. 
et Vind. Canonis, p. 439 seq., some half a century since maintained), 
greatly resembled in its leading features our canonical Matthew. It 
was usually called by Matthew’s name (xur@ Mardaiov), and thus was 
given out by those who used it as his authentic work; “a plerisque 
Matthaei authenticum [vocatur’], says Jerome in Comm. in Matt. 12: 
13. It was nearly of the same extent with the genuine Gospel of 
Matthew; for Nicephorus of Byzantium, about A.D. 890, mentions 
this Gospel of the Hebrews (or κατὰ Mardaiov) as one of the avrods— 
γομένων, but not as one of the apocryphal books, and says that it con- 
tains 2200 στίχοι, while to our canonical Matthew he assigns 2500 
στίχοι. So long did this work preserve some credit among a part of 
professed Christians. 

Add to all this now the very important circumstance, that none of the 
fathers except Jerome even pretend to have seen and read the xara 
Mut ®aiov Gospel in the Hebrew ; and this for the best of all reasons, 
viz. that none of them but he were able toread it in this language. 


<< 


XV 


708 NOTE XV. 


Hence every thing must have depended on the current report of those 
who used the Hebrew Gospel xara Matduiov. They of course con- 
tended for its authenticity; and its resemblance to the canonical 
Matthew might even have made it doubtful to a somewhat discerning 
reader, whether the basis of it might not have been the work of Mat- 
thew, because of the resemblance which it bore to his canonical Gos- 
el. Even Jerome himself, after he had translated this Gospel x00 
LPoatovsg, does not seem prepared i in his mind to give a full and posi- 
tive opinion, whether the real Gospel of Matthew might not have been 
the basis. Most abundantly do his remarks and quotations from it 
shew, that it had been tampered with by omissions and additions. But 
whether the genuine Matthew was its ariginal basis, is a question on 
which he appears to have thought differently at different times ; owing 
probably to the circumstance, that before he obtained a copy of it he 
was guided by general report, but after he had read and compared it, 
he judged it to be spurious. 

This difference in his opinion is strongly marked by the manner in 
which, at different times, he expresses himself about the dialect of the 
Gospel xaWd “LBeatous. In his earlier works he speaks of this as be- 
ing Hebraco sermone. But in a late work of his (Contra Pelag. III. 2), 
four years before his death, he gives us, with more minute accuracy, an 
account of the real state of this matter: “In evangelio juxta Hebraeos, 
quod Chaldaico quidem et Syro sermone, sed Hebraicis litcris scriptum 
est.” Inthe Chaldce and Syriac idiom, then, i. 6. in the mixt idiony 
(as I understand this) made up of these two languages, which was ev- 
ery where predominant in the northern and eastern part of Palestine, 
the Gospel in question was written, although the letters were Hebrew. 
All this is just what the Jews still practise. The German Jews print 
many of their books which are written in the German language, by em- 
ploying Hebrew letters; the Turkish Jews, who speak Spanish, print 
their books with Hebrew letters; and if this is now done in respect to 
languages so discrepant from the Hebrew, how much more natural was 
it to write a Syro-Chaldaic book, in the early ages of Christianity, with 
the Hebrew alphabet which tallied exactly with the alphabets of those 
two dialects. The reader will note, that Jerome, in his minute and 
circumstantial description, plainly designs to distinguish between the 
proper Hebrew tongue and the Syro-Chaldaic. 

After all, then, the report of a Gospel of Matthew being extant in the 
proper Hebrew of the apostle’s time, seems to have no just foundation ; 
but a Syro-Chaldaic Gospel of this nature, most clearly was current 
among the Nazarenes and Ebionites. 

Thus much for the ground of ancient report, respecting the Hebrew 
‘Gospel of Matthew. Let us now sum up, very briefly, the considera- 
tions which speak positively in favour of a Greek original. 

1. If a Syro-Chaldaic original of Matthew’s canonical Gospel were 
extant and current in the second and third centuries, how is it possible 
to account for it, that the authors of the Peshito, or old Syriac version, 
made at the close of the second or beginning of the third century, 
should have translated the Gospel of Matthew from our canonical Greek 
eopy ; as it is certain they did? Nay, why need they have translated it 


—————E Cl ὀὌορ““““ὩὩὦὃ 


Ol δ 


ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 709 


at all, inasmuch as the original itself would have been altogether intelli- 
gible among the Syrians? 

2. How can it be satisfactorily accounted for, that a true Hebrew 
original of Matthew, so widely diffused as the εὐαγγέλιον καϑ' '᾿Πβραί- 
ους was, should have been so utterly and early lost that no traces of it 
except a few fragments remaing? 

3. If our present Greek Matthew is a mere translation, how is it 
possible that no tradition of early ages should have conveyed any re- 
port to Christians, who the translator was and where he lived? I am 
aware, indeed, that later ecclesiastical writers, with a view to save the 
credit of the Greek: Gospel of Matthew, assign to it translations of high 
authority. The author of the Synopsis Sac. Script. (printed in Opp. 
Athanasii, Tom. II: p. 155) says, that ‘it was interpreted (ἡομενε  θὴ} 
by James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh.” Isidorus 
Hispalensis (De Vita et Obit. Sanct. c. 76), and Nicephorus (LV. 32), 
assert that Bartholomew translated it into the language of India, where 
he preached ; which, however, has no bearing on our present Greek copy. 
Anastasius Sinaita (Anagog. Contempl. c. 8) avers, that Luke and Paul 
translated it into Greek ; Theophylact(Prooem. in Matt.), that the apos- 
tle John translated it. All these reports, however, are so late and so 
discrepant as to shew, that what Jerome said at the close of the fourth 
century was no doubt true; viz., “Quis in Graecum transtulerit, non 
satis certum est ;’”’ de Vir. Illustr. c. 3. This is said in one of his earlier 
works, when he seems to have fully believed in a Hebrew original, and 
before he had enjoyed an opportunity of examining for himself. 

4. Isit probable in any good degree, that authentic Hebrew copies of 
Matthew should have escaped the laborious and diligent search of Ori- 
gen, and of Lucian in his recension of Mss., who doubtless had some 
acquaintance with the Syro-Chaldaic language, from the fact that he 
lived at Antioch in Syria? 

5. The genuineness and authenticity of the canonical Greek Gospel 
of Matthew do not appear to have even been at all doubted or im- 
pugned, at Jeast in the church catholic, in the primitive ages of Chris- 
tianity. How could this happen, if it were a mere version, and the orig- 
inl was still current ? 

These are considerations which seem to be of serious weight, in re- 
spect to the question, What was the original language of Matthew? 
Many other arguments have been urged both for and against the origi- 
nality of the Greek, from the use which is made of the Sept. version, 
and from the appeal which is now and thén made to the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures themselves, by translating them directly and independently of this 
version. Even in cases where Matthew has recorded that which is pe- 
culiar to himself, and in which he differs from the other Evangelists, he 
translates directly from the Hebrew; 6. g. 2:6, 15, 18. 4: 15. δ: 17. 9: 
13. 12: 18—21. 13:35. 21: 4. 27: 9, 10. In other passages of the 
like description he follows the Sept. quite exactly ; 6. g. 1: 23. 21: 16. 
13: 14, 15. But the same thing may be shewn also, respecting other 
parts of this gospel ; notwithstanding Eichhorn has asserted the contra- 
ry; Einleit. I. After all, then, nothing that is much to be relied upon 
in argument, can be made out in this way. A translator of a Hebrew 
original of Matthew might sometimes take the Sept. version as his 


710 NOTE XVI. 


guide, and sometimes translate directly for himself Matthew’s quotations 
from the Hebrew Scriptures. Matthew might do the same, if he wrote 
in Greek. Nothing certain or important, then, can be made out of this 
argument, in respect to the original of Matthew’s Gospel. 

Does the work abound in Hebraisms ? It does; but these can be no 
proof that the original was Hebrew; for the same thing is true of all 
parts of the New ‘Testament, and, in my judgment, not less true of even 
Luke, than of Matthew. 

Bolten, and after him Eichhorn and others, have endeavored to shew, 
that by recurring to the δελογία of the original, or at least to words ca- 
pable of two significations in the Syro-Chaldaic, we may account for 
some alleged errors in our present canonical Gospel of Matthew; and 
therefore it follows, that the orzginal of it was probably Syro-Chaldaic. 
But these-and all such allegations are equally applicable to all other 


. parts of the New Testament. Bolten, indeed, has so applied them. 


Interpreters of the present day, however, regard such a method of rea- 
soning as both unnecessary and improbable. The alleged errors are 
most of them, to say the least, the errors of Bolten as to the real mean- 
ing of the text, and not the errors of the sacred writers. 

Ina word ; how can I read the Gospel of Matthew, as it now hies be- 
fore me, and feel that [ am reading a translation made in ancient times ? 
Where is any version like it? The Septuagint? ‘That is greatly di- 
verse from it, in very many and important respects. Ican no more find 
internal evidences of a version in Matthew, than I can in Mark, Luke, 
or John. I must believe, then, that the real original is before us. 
There is no evidence of an Aramacan original, except what proves the 
Aramaean work at the same time to be spurious. Why should we them 
admit such an original ? 


“Nore 16. Sources of the Gospel of Mark ; also of the Gospels of 


Luke and Matthew. (p. 349, § 17 seq.) 


To discuss this subject at length, would require a volume ; and ever 
to give any particular account of all which has been written in relation 
to it, would require much more space than has been allotted to this sub- 
ject by Hug, or than can be here allowed. I shall therefore confine 
myself to a few leading and*elementary notices, which may serve in 
some measure to guide the researches of the reader, who may wish to 
go deeply into an investigation of this nature. 

I. All who read and compare the three first Gospels, as they stand 
exhibited in any good Greek Harmony, cannot fail to notice, that they 
agree not only in the general tenor of narration, as to the important say- 
ings and doings of Jesus, but often in the very diction itself; and in regard 
to the diction, in some cases the different Gospels agree even in quota- 
tions from the Old Testament, where the translation is made de nore 
and not copied from the Sept. version. 

Let the reader compare, for his own satisfaction as to this, not only 


SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS. Ἴ11Ι 


the general tenor of the historical narrations, but also their agreement 
as to modes of expression in the following examples, viz., (1) Between 
all three of the Evangelists. 


Matt. 3:3: Mark 1:3. Luke 3: 4. 
9:45. 2: 20. δ: 85. 
16: 28. 10: 23. 10: 94. 
(2) Between Matthew and Luke. 
Matt. 4: 5. Luke 4: 9. 
A: 48.}}. 4: 8. 
ae Os 6: 42. 
11: 10. Fewer 
ΠΙΣΤΉ ae 7: 28. 
beee207. £3 «7 10; 24. 
Q1; 44. 20: 18. 
24: 50. 12: 46. 


(3) Between Matthew and Mark. 
Matt. 15:8 seq. Mark 7: 6 seq. 
24: 32. 13: 20 
26: 55. 14: 48. 


(4) Between Mark and Luke. 
Mark 6: 41. Luke 9: 16. 
15: 15. 22: 12. 
These are, of course, only a small specimen of what might easily be 
produced ; but they may serve as an example to illustrate what has been 
asserted above. 


II. More striking, especially, is the resemblance of the Gospel of 
Mark to that of Matthew particularly, and then to that of Luke in 


many respects. In fact, he seems to have only about twenty-seven | 


verses which are entirely peculiar to himself as to matter, although in 
most other cases he has more or Jess of difference, either as to circum- 
stantial things or else as to diction. 

(1) The verses which contain matter peculiar altogether to himself, 
are in 4: 26—29. 7: 32—37. 8: 22—26. H:H=. 13: 338—37. 16: 
9—I1. Wi blah 

(2) Mark appears sometimes to follow Luke, and sometimes Mat- 
thew; as the reader may see by comparing the following passages ; viz., 


Mark 1: 35—39. Luke 4: 42—44. 
1: 45. ᾿ 5: 15 seq. 
4: 21—25. 8: 16—Is. 
6: 14—29. Matt. 14: 1—12. 


(3) Mark apparently uses the text of both Matthew and Luke in com- 
bination, as may be seen by comparing, 
Mark 3: 7—12. Luke 6: 17—19. Matt. 12: 15—16. 
6: 30—33. 9: 10) 11. 14: 33. 


ky 


712 NOTE XVI. 


Mark 8:3. Luke 1: 42. Matt. 5: 13. 
8: 4 1: 44. 5: 14. 
9: Ὁ. 2: & seq. 5: 27 seq. 
9: 17. 2: 22. ἢ 5: 97. 
8: 27. 4: 41 seq. 8: 25. 
8: 28. 5: 1 seq. ΝΠ δ' 26. 


This catalogue could be easily extended to passages almost without 
number, scattered through the whole Gospel of Mark. See De Wette, 
Einleit. ins N. Test. p. 139, ed. 2nd. 

(4) Mark appears sometimes to make a summary of Matthew or 
Luke, or to give ashort hint of wha&is contained more at large in 
them. E. g. 


‘Mark 1: 12 seq. Matt. 4: 1 seq. 11. Luke 4: 1, 2. 


4: 34. _ 13:34, 36 seq. 
16: 12 seq. Od Re oc 24: 13 seq. 
16: 14 seq. 28: 16 seq. 24: 36 seq. 


Phenomena of this kind have led many recent critics of high stand- 
ing, to assume the position that Mark made up his Gospel principally 
from the work of Matthew and Luke, and that he has only here and 
there exhibited an,original hand, while for the most part he is merely a 
close and faithful épitomator. _ 

This idea, or one kindred to it, is not entirely new. So long ago as 
the beginning of the fifth century, Augustine (de Consensu Evangel. I. 
4) said: Marcus Matthaeum subsequutus, tanquam pedisscquus et brevi- 
ator ejus videtur. This distinguished father, no doubt, came to such a 
view, by a diligent comparison of the two Gospels of Matthew and 
Mark. 

In modern times many hints of the like nature have been thrown out. 
Grotius (ad Matt. τ. and Luke1t.), Mill (Proleg. § 109), and Wetstein 
(Praef. at Marci Evang. and ad Luc. Evang.), advance the supposition, 
that Mark in writing his Gospel made use of Matthew; and that Luke, 
in writing his, made use of both Matthew and Mark. Storr, on the oth- 
er hand, held Mark’s Gospel to be the original one, and the source of 
both Matthew and Luke; Ueber den Zweck Johannis; etc. ὃ 58— 62; 
~ also in his De Fonte Evangelioram, etc., in Commentt. 'Theol. by Vel- 
thusen, Kuinoel, and Ruperti, Vol. ΠῚ. Biisching maintained that Luke 
is the oldest writer, that he served as the basis of Matthew, and that both 
together were the basis of Mark; Vorrede zur Harmonie, p. 109. 
Comp. Eichh. Allgem. Biblioth. V. p. 489. Vogel, more recently, main-_ 
tains that Luke is the source of Mark; and that both Luke and Mark 
are the basis of Matthew ; in Gabler’s Journal fiir auserl. theol. Litte- 
ratur, B. I. St. 1. 

. Finally, Griesbach, in a most laboured and very able essay, printed 
in the Comm. Theol. of Velthusen, etc., Vol. I., and entitled De Fonti- 
bus, etc., endeavoured to prove that Mark has every where copied Mat- 
thew, (as Augustine has said, pedissequus et breviator). This essay 
was first published in 1789. Owen, in his Observations on the four Gos- 
pels, Lond. 1764, had before hinted the same thing. Stroth (in Eichh. 
Repertor. 1X. p. 144) accords with this view; as does Paulus in his 
Conservatorium, I., and Ammon in his De Luca emendatore Matthaei, 


— 


SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS. 718 


1805 ; all, however, with some peculiarities of theirown. In 1825, H. 
Saunier published at Berlin, an -essay entitled, Ueber die Quellen des 
Evang. des Markus; in which, according to general assent, he seems 
to have established the main position of Griesbach in respect to the 
Gospel of Mark, beyond all reasonable contradiction. 

But while it is agreed on all hands, and indeed it is quite impossible 
that it should be denied, that the Gospel of Mark does in a peculiar 
manner resemble that of Matthew, vet there is more than one way of 
accounting for this resemblance. We have seen to what theory the 
distinguished writers just named resorted, in order to account for this 
resemblance between any two of all three of the Gospels. The basis 
of the theory is, the copying of some one or two of the Gospels by the 
author of another. This, however, has in its turn met with vehement 
opposition from a quarter that we should hardly have expected, viz., 
from some of the neological critics. Russwurm (Ueber 4. Ursprung der 
3 Evangg. 1797), Eichhorn (Einleit. I. 73 seq.), and Bertholdt (Einleit. 
III. p. 1127 seq.), allege, that on such a vine no good reason can be 
given, why each Evangelist here and there has something peculiar to 
himself; why he here and there speaks more definitely than another, 
more circumstantially, more chronologically, and sometimes more brief- 
ly and summarily. No good reason, they say, can be given, why the 
diction even of one should be altered by his copyist forthe worse, made 
obscure where it was before plain, be changed without being improved, 
made into poorer Greek instead of better, and other things of the like 
nature. 

On the ground that the Evangelists were servile copyists, these objec- 
tions seem to be unanswerable. But on the ground that the Evange- 
lists made, each in his turn, free use of the Gospels before composed, 
yet not so as to bind himself in all respects as to matter or manner, 
these objections in themselves considered would not be very weighty. 

But have those who have urged such objections, substituted any bet- 
ter theory i in the place of that ‘which “ὦ oppose ? Hug has answered 
this question, in a good measure, in δῷ 18—380; where he has proposed 
the respective theories of Marsh, Eichhorn, and Gratz. The basis of 
all these theories it is easy to place before the mind of a reader, ina 
manner altogether intelligible. It may be stated in a few words. 

1. There are so many and so close resemblances between the three 
first Evangelists, that they can be accounted for in no other way than 
by supposing, either that they have copied from each other, or from 
some common document or documents. 

(2) They have not copied from each other, for the i stated 
above. 

(3) It must follow, that they have copied from some common docu- 
ments. 

To shew in what way all the various discrepancies among the Gos- 
pels, as to matter and style, may be accounted for on this last ground, 
different theorists have proposed pians which differ in their detail, al- 
though the basis of them all is substantially the same. 

(a) The Gospel according to the Hebrews has been made the com- 
mon source by some; e. g. Lessing, Vermischte Schriften, VI. 50. 

90 


714 > ul ͵ -NOTE XVI. 


Niemeyer, Conjecturae ad Illustrandum, etc. 1790. Weber, Beitraige 
zur Geshichte des N. Test. Kanons, 1791. Evang. der Hebraer, 1806. 

(b) The original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has been regarded as the 
common source of the three first canonical Gospels by others; 6. g. 
Corrodi, Beleucht. d. Geschicht. des Bibelcanons, I]. 150. Thiess, 
Comm. in N. Test., Einl. ὃ 13 seq. J. E. C. Schmidt, Entwurf ete., in 
Henke’s Magaz. 1V. St. 3. Bolten, Vorrede zur deutsch. Uebersetz. 
der Evangelien. ᾿ 

(c) Eichhorn has brought forward two theories; the first of which 
is in his Allgem. Biblioth. B. V. ‘The substance of this is, (1) A mgo- 
τευαγγέλιον (Urevangelium). (2) An altered edition of this, which 
we may call A.; which is the basis of Matthew. (3) A still different 
and altered edition of No. 1, that we may name B.; which is the basis 
of Luke. (4) A new edition of No. 1, incorporating the additions and 
alterations in A. and B.; the basisof Mark. (5) Another edition still, 
different from any of the preceding, the basis of the peculiarities in 
Matthew and Luke where they agree with each other but differ from 
Mark. 

Bishop Marsh, in his translation of Michaelis, not content with this 
theory, and unable to solve all the phenomena of the three first Gospels 
by it, invented another mode of solution still more complicated. In’ No. 
(1) We have the original Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Gospel. (2) The Greek 
translation of it. (3) Copies of this with smaller and larger additions ; 
which we may note by a and A. (4) Still different copies, with the 
like additions; β and B. (5) A copy in which Nos. 3 and 4 are min- 
gled together; the basis of Mark. (6) Matthew has for its basis No. 
3, with some new additions in still different recensions of No. 1, which 
may be named y and J‘ 1. (7) Luke has for its basis a new edition of 
No. 4, which has also incorporated in it the additions y and-J" 1. (8) 
Matthew and Luke made use of still another original Gospel, 3, which 
contained additions 7" 2; and this accounts for their agreement with 
each other, in some cases where they both differ from Mark. 

Eichhorn, moved it would seem by the difficulties which Marsh had 
suggested, or else coveting something still more ingenious and artificial 
than his first theory, came out anew in his Einleit. ins N. Test. I., with 
a more complex theory still. (1) An Aramaean original Gospel. (2) 
A Greek translation of it. (3) Original Gospel remodeled, A. ; the ba- 
sis of Matthew. (4) Greek translation of this, modified by No.2. (5) 
A different modeling of No. 1 in the Aramaean, B.; the basis of Luke. 
(6) An editionin which Nos.3 and 5 were united, C.; the basis of. 
Mark. (7) A fourth remodeling of the original Gospel, different from 
all the others, D.; used by Matthew and Luke, where they agree to- 
gether and differ from Mark. (8) A Greck version of this on the basis 
of No.2. (9) Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, as a whole, is derived from © 
Nos. 3 and 7, i.e. A. and D., and may be called E. (10) Matthew’s 
Greek Gospel is derived from Nos. 4 and 8, i. 6. the altered Greek ver- 
sions of A. and D. (11) Mark in using A. and B., Nos. 3 and 5, used 
the Greek version of A., and the original Aramaean of B. (12) Luke 
not only used B. and D., Nos. 5 and 7, but also a still different recen- 
sion of the original Gospel, named #. Moreover he used the Greek ver- 
sion of D., but the original Aramaean of B. 


4 
Ὦ 


4 F Sin Φ 
. SOURCES OF THE ΘΟΘΡΈΙ, 5. ie 


Did the reader ever see, or imagine, any thing like to this, in order 

to account for the composition of a brief, simple, historical narration? 
Yet Ziegler, Haenlein, Kuinoel, Bertholdt, Gratz, and many others, 
have declared in favour of a womreveyyedcov, and have endeavoured, 
although with variations from Marsh and Eichhorn as to some partic- 
ulars of their theory, to account for the sameness and the discrepancies 
of the Evangelists in this strained and unnatural manner. 
. It is enough to say, that not a trace exists in all antiquity of this fa- 
mous πρωτευαγγέλιον, (which it is hardly possible to account for, had 
there been any such document); that the theories in question would re- 
duce the Evangelists to mere second hand, drudging plagiarists, who were 
not able to write scarcely a sentence of their own which was original ; 
that it will not, after all, account for many of the resemblances or dis- 
crepancies in question; and that the whole thing is so artificial, so 
strained, and so derogatory to the character of the Evangelists, that, in 
case it were matter of fact, we can conceive of no good reason why our 
canonical Gospels came into general circulation among the ancients, in 
preference to the originals from which they were plagiarized. Popular 
and captivating as these theories were among the Germans, when first 
broached, they have now become nearly as extinct in Germany as Har- 
douin’s theory of the authorship of the classics, which attributed them to 
the monks of the middle ages. In looking seriously at them, now, one 
is forced to exclaim: When will the extravagant vagaries of the human 
mind cease to mislead? De Wette himself, who is far from being 
averse to singular theories in criticism, exclaims: ‘‘ One can only won- 
der, that these hypotheses should have ever gained approbation.” Yet 
Kuinoel’s Commentary, down to the present hour, is filled with refer- 
ences to the πρωτευαγγέλεον, as though it were altogether a matter plain 
and well established ! 

The theory of Dr. Gieseler, examined by Hug in § 22 (p. 364), is less 
revolting than those already presented, but on the whole not more 
satisfactory. A stereotyped traditional Gospel, such as he supposes, is 
practically an impossibility. Every narrator in prose would alter the 
costume more or less to suit his own style. In substance the story 
might remain the same; but it would receive many additions and chan- 
ges. Dr. G., however, was not original in this thought. Eckermann 
(Theol. Beitrige, B. II.), Herder (Von Gottes Sohn), Kaiser (Bibl. 
Theol. I. 224), Paulus (Algem. Lit. Zeit. 1813), and others, have broach- 
ed the same views. But Dr. G. has adorned them with a more attrac- 
tive dress. 

The common sense and sober reflection of some other critics have 
brought them, at last, to the simple basis on which as it seems to me 
this whole matter should always have been placed, and where Luke has 
opened a way plainly for us to place it, im the prooem to his Gospel. 
Let us for a moment attentively examine this. 


᾿᾿πειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασϑαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν 
πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καϑύς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾽ 
ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου ἔδοξε κάμοι παρ- 
ηκολουϑηκότι ἄνωϑεν πάσιν ἀκριβῶς, καϑεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε 
Θεόφιλε" ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήϑης λόγων τὴν ἀσφαλείαν. 


716 ° NOTE XVI. ° Μ 
Ψ 

Let us see, then, what are the views which are here distinctly given, 
(1) Many have undertaken to compose narrations, (and in writing too, 
for so ἀνατάξασϑαι διήγησιν must here mean, else it will be no apology 
for Luke’s writing a διεήγησιςν, respecting the sayings and doings of 
Christ. (2) Eve witnesses and ministers of the word, (this is the usual 
sense of ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου, and no other is critically and exegetically 
certain), had spread abroad oral accounts of the same matters. So 
παρέδοσαν naturally means; and so it should be construed here. ‘To 
suppose an ellipsis of διήγησιν afier παρέδοσαν here (as Hug does p. 
388), seems to me not only to be forced ‘and unnatural, but to miss the 
evident aim of the writer. The «amg here I do not refer back to 
ἀναταάξασϑαι διήγησεν, and thus make the writer say, that the many 
had undertaken to compose narrations which would accord with the tes- 
timony of eye and ear witnesses; but I refer it, as the laws of grammar 
would naturally direct us to do, to the clause immediately preceding. 
The writer means to say, that the events narrated in evangelical histo- 
ries did in reality happen {(πεπληροφορημένων), and that we have the 
testimony of eye and ear witnesses as vouchers for the fact that they did. 

Thus far then the protasis of the sentence. In this we have the 
simple declarations, that many had undertaken to compose written nar- 
rations respecting the sayings and doings of Jesus, which were orally 
testified to by eye and ear witnesses. "ἢ he question, whether the many 
had succeeded well or ill in composing their narrations, the writer does 
nothere solve. The fact that they professed and meant to follow the 
testimony of eye and ear witnesses, may well be supposed ; for nothing 
was more natural than for the writers of such narrations to make their 
appeal tosuch sources. But that they succeeded well in accomplishing 
the work which they undertook,—of that we are not here informed, but 
left merely to conjecture, or at most to draw a probable inference from 
the sequel of the sentence. 

What now, in view of the facts just stated, does Luke himself intend 
todo! Apologizing as it were for his undertaking, because many oth- 
ers had already engaged in the like work ; declaring that he had traced 
every thing up to itssource (nog7jz0,000 ηκότι ἀμώϑεν πᾶσιν ἀχριβὼς), 
he intends to write to Τ' heophilus χαϑεξῆς, in order, i. 6. with arrange- 
ment and proper construction. Here is probably a covert inumation, 
that the πολλοί had not done so. If they had, what need of a new 
διήγησις 1 we might naturally ask. Yet the personal friendship of Luke 
for Theophilus, and probably the desire of the latter to have such a 
work from his hand, might have moved him to this, even in case the 
other διηγήσεις had not been specially deficient as to matter or manner. 

There is yet one or two more circumstances to be noted. ‘They are 
these, viz. that Luke made such inquiries as he specifies, and came 
to a resolution to write κα ἡ εξῆς, in order that Theophilus might know 
the certainty (aoqg aiever) of the matters in which he had been orally 
instructed (κατηχὴ One). Here is an implication that the writings of 
the πολλοί would not effectually secure thisend; or at least, that Luke 
hoped himself more effectually to secure it. ‘There is another intima- 
tion, very important to our present purpose, viz., that Theophilus, had, 
been orally taught the matter of the gospels already, περὶ ὧν κατηχή- 
Ons λόγων. Here then we have a most explicit intimation of the man- 
ner in which the Gospel was originally propagated. There were many 


j SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS: ys yr 


writings in circulation. But the eye and ear witnesses continued to 
tell the story orally (παρέδοσαν). It was thus that it had been propa- 
gated to Theophilus, who either had no written διηγήσεις, or did not 
care to use those which he had seen. Luke therefore undertook to 
give him a more permanent, stable, and exact account than he had 
hitherto received ; although that in which he had been orad/y instructed, 
does not seem to be regarded as discordant with the testimony of eye 
and ear witnesses. 

Thus we have the state of the Christian world before us, when Luke 
wrote; which could not be much remote from the time in which the 
other Evangelits also wrote. Original witnesses were every where 
“ spreading abroad the word,” and πολλοί were endeavouring to help 
on the same cause, by composing narrations in writing. But these pro- 
ductions, however well meant, do not seem in the judgment of Luke to 
be worthy of all acceptation and confidence ; and therefore he comes 
to the conclusion in his mind, that some new efforts are needed as to 
written communications of the Gospel. 

From this state of things, so obvious and so natural, it seems to me 
that we may account for all that needs to be accounted for, both as to 
the resemblances and discrepancies of the three first Gospels. 

I cannot for a moment accede, however, to the criticism of I7ug upon 
nagaxvdovdnzore (p. 391), by which he makes it here to mean, that 
Luke ‘ was in the region where he could observe all the events that he 
relates, as they took place,’ and this from their first development. There 
can, indeed, be no doubt that παρακολουϑέω, in its first and literal 
sense, means to be personally present with any individual or at the oc- 
currence of any particular event. But in the case before us, this liter- 
al meaning is out of all question, in consequence of the ἀχρεβῶς with 
which παραχολουϑέω is joined, and which shews very plainly that only 
a mental παρακολουϑέω can be intended, i. 6. an accurate and diligent 
tracing of things to their original sources, a careful scrutiny of them. 
I am aware that Hug (p. 394) reckons Luke among the seventy disci- 
ples sent out by the Saviour to preach the Gospel ; according to the tra- 
dition mentioned by Origen (Dial. cont. Marcion., Tom. I. p. 806, ed. 
De Ja Rue), and also by Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. XXXL. or LI. § 12’. 
But Col. 4: 11—15 seems to shew that Luke was not ἐχ περιτομῆς, and 
therefore that he was a Gentile pruselyte. He appears first on the scene 
of Christian action, in Acts 10: 11, where he is related to have joined 
himself to Paul and gone with him to Philippi. Is it probable that at 
this time he could have engaged ’in such journeyings and services as he 
afterwards performed, provided he had been so far advanced in life as 
he must now have been, in case he was one of the seventy disciples? 

Luke, then, according to these suggestions, must have gone to Pal- 
estine,the scene of evangelical action, and there learned and treasured 
up the things which he has produced to our view in his Gospel. So he 
would seem to say in his Prooem; at least he says the most important 
part of this, viz., that he had made diligent scrutiny of every thing 
ἄνωθεν, i.e. even to its very sources. ‘This he could not have done, 
without repairing in person. to Palestine. Tradition says that he was 
born at Antioch; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. HID. 4. Jerome, De Viris Illust., 
v, Lucas. ‘There the Gospel was early preached ; and there he may 
have been, and probably was, an early convert to it. 


718 NOTE XVI. 


Let us tee now in the case of Luke, which at present is before us 
and will serve equally well for that of Matthew and Mark, what were 
the means or materials for writing accessible to this Evangelist. (1) 
There was the testimony of eye and ear witnesses, scattered all over 
the country of Palestine, both as to the words and deeds of Jesus. (2) 
‘There were the written documents of many; which, although not in 
all respects as they should have been, no doubt exhibited much that was 
true and useful. Did he make use of these sources only, or was there 
before him the Gospel of Matthew; not to say (as Hug supposes) that of 
Mark also? 

It seems to be implied in the prooem of Luke, that the πολλοί there 
named as authors of evangelical διηγήσεις, had not written καϑεξῆς nor 
ἀκριβῶς, nor investigated ἄνωϑεν. Could he, and would he have said this — 
of the two apostles, Matthew and John? Were their Gospels among 
the works of the πολλοί which are thus characterized? To me itseems 
plain that they were not. Does not Matthew commence his work ἄνω- 
Sev? Does not John go even further back still, and commence with 
the Logos state itself of existence? Would the intimate friend of Paul, 
and the hearty friend of the Christian cause, have thus spoken of Mat- 
thew and John? 

Then if Luke copied from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, how 
could he have omitted so many important things which they contain? 
Examine, for example, Matthew 9: 27 seq. 13: 24 seq. 14: 22 seq. 15: 
Φ1 seq., 32 seq. 16: 1—12. 17: 24 seq. 19: 1—12. 22: 34 seq. 25: 1— 
13, 31—46. 26: 6 seq. 27: 28 seq. 

Examine also Mark 1: 16 seq. 6: 45 seq. vir. 8: 1—26. 10: 1—10. 
12: 28 seq. 14: 3 seq. 15: 17 seq. 

All these important matters recorded here, Luke has wholly omiged 
That he differs from Matthew specially, and sometimes from Mark, in the 
order of his narrations, lies upon the face of every Greek Harmony. 
That he is in many cases less circumstantial, minute, and exact, as to 
designating place, etc., every one must know, who minutely examines 
the evangelical histories. See an exhibition of striking examples, in 
Schott’s Isagoge, p. 40, Note 5. 

In substance the like things may be said of Mark’s Gospel. If he 
was, as Griesbach and others have strenuously asserted, the mere epito- 
mator of Matthew, or of Matthew and Luke, how comes it that there is 
not a word of the prooem of either of these two Gospels in that of Mark ? _ 
Why did he not tell us any thing of the Sermon on the Mount? Why 
has he, ina multitude of places, made circumstantial additions to the 
narrative, which are wanting in Matthew, or in Luke, or in both 1 Why 
does he Hebraize more thoroughly than either, and abound more in an- 
acolutha ard peculiarities of construction? Why has he so many fa- 
vourite phrases and modes of expression, which seldom or never appear 
elsewhere? J.D. Schulze (in Keil and ‘T'zschirner’s Analekten, B. 
II. 111.) has pointed out more than 80 words, in the short historical 
composition of Mark, which he has employed in a sense or connection 
entirely peculiar to himself, or nearly so. The same author reckons 
more than 76 ἅπαξ λεγόμεναϊ in the same Evangelist. Can all this be 
true of a composition of so little extent, and yet Mark be a mere epito- 
mator or pedissequus ? Can all this be true (that it is, will not be de- 
nied), and yet Mark ued amere plagiarist, a copyist who is a very drudge, 


_ 


SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS. 719 


and knows little more than to transcribe, or at most abridge, what he 
finds in his exemplar ? 

_In substance the same thing may be said of Matthew. . What other 
Evangelist exhibits the matter of this prooem ; a great part of the Ser- 
mon on the Mount; and many particulars in various parts of his narra- 
tion? Has he not ἃ τάξες, or rather an ἀταξία, which is altogether his 
own, and from which all the other Evangelists have departed? Does 
he not quote the Old Testament Scriptures more than all the other 
Evangelists collectively? Does any other Evangelist make such use of 
transition-phrases ashe; viz. such .as καὶ ἐγένετο, Ore ἐτέλεσεν 0 ‘In- 
σοῦς, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καίρῳ, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, and-especially τοτὲ ? 
Has he not, like Mark, ἃ large number of words and phrases, which are 
employed by him in a sense altogether peculiar to himself; and a still 
larger number of ἅπαξ Asyousva? See Schott, Isagoge, p. 83. Notes 
3, 4, comp. id. p. 28, Note 4. 

Let now an unprejudiced and skilful reader, who is wedded to no sys- 
tem or theory in respect to the γένεσις of the Gospels, take up a Greek 
Harmony, and read on with the most minute and scrutinizing attention 
to diction, grammatical construction, transition-particles and phrases, 
variation of order, place, circumstances, particularity, omissions by one 
and insertions by another, fulness in one and brevity in another, and the 
like ; all of which applies respectively in a greater or less degree to 
each Evangelist ; Jet him read through the Gospels in this way, and he 
will need no critic to tell him, whether the writers of the first three Gos- 
pels were men who stood upon their own basis, or whether they were 
men who merely reared up a building with materials already collected 
and prepared by others. No critic, by any or allof his analyses and 
comparisons, will satisfy him that these historians are not after all in- 
dependent writers. 

But, to notice the last question and the turning point of the whole: 
* How is it possible that there should be so much sameness between any 
two, or all three, of them? Can this be the result of any thing but of 
copying from each other, or from some sources which they all used in 
common 7᾽ 

I have no hesitation in saying, that it seems quite possible to me to 
account for all the sameness which they exhibit, without resorting to 
either of these suppositions. For all the diversity which they exhibit, 
we need not account, on the supposition that they were independent 
writers, for then it is manifest of itself; but on the ground that they 
were mere copyists and plagiarists, this diversity would itself become as 
difficult a problem, as any which sameness among them now presents. 

Who has not heard of the ῥαψωδοί of ancient days? How were 
Homer’s and Hesiod’s poems preserved, for centuries after they were 
written ? Every school-boy knows the answer to this question. Every one, 
too, who has read the Arabian Night’s Entertainment, and is acquainted 
with the present customs of the East, knows full well, that there are 
a multitude of wandering éaymdo! there, who could repeat more 
than the thousand and one stories, and who transmit their tales in suc- 
cession from one generation to another. This custom of repeating ro- 
mantic stories and pieces of poetry, occupies a place in the East like to 
that of the drama in the West, and excites even a greater interest. 


720 NOTE XVI. 


How was it in Palestine, as to matters of this nature 1 There, for some 
ages, the traditions of the elders had been orally handed down. So they 
continued to be, for more than two centuries after the Christian era 
commenced. At length Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh reduced them to 
writing, and embodied them in the Mishra. The very prooem of Pirge 
Aboth sets out with the declaration, that the traditions which it contains, 
came down from Moses and the seventy elders of his time. And 
although we give no credit to this extravagant claim, yet so much lies 
on the face of Jewish history as exhibited in the Gospels, viz. that they 
had a multitude of éraditions handed down from former times, which 
were orally preserved. 

Who has not read of the Scalds, or ῥαιμωδοί of northern Europe 7 
Who does not know that among the aborigines of our country, and 
among nearly all nations destitute of literature, traditional sayings and 
stories and poetry are orally preserved ? 

Of the many thousands, then, who heard Jesus speak, and who wit- 
nessed his miracles, were there not many alive at the period when our 
΄ Gospels were written? Surely there were. But as to Matthew, he 
himself being an original eye and ear witness, why need we go to any 
other source than his own recollection or his own memoranda? Could 
not a publican write? And could he not of course write Greek, if he 
had sustained such an office as this ? 

As to Mark; it is admitted, on all hands, that he was the intimate 
friend and companion of Peter. Was not Peter an original and au- 
thentic source of consultation for him? Would not the recollection of 
Peter and of Matthew be very likely to agree somewhat as to diction, 
in very many cases where there was something peculiar and striking ; 
and yet these two apostles might differ as to diction, when they came 
to narrate less striking events or sayings? Nothing is more natural 
than all this; and therefore nothing more probable. 

As to Luke, he tells us that he investigated every thing ἄνωϑεν, OF 
course he must have resorted to apostolic testimony. None but apos- 
tles could have given testimony in many cases such as he exhibits. 
Now to whatever apostle he betook himself for information, there would 
be the same ground of similitade or of discrepancy in respect to others, 
as'in the case of Matthew and Peter. Striking and peculiar things 
would be said in the same words, or very nearly so; other matters would 
leave room for a greater variety, and for personal peculiarities of diction. 

In this way, it seems to ne, we may very naturally account for it, how 
the Evangelists came to agree, and also how they came to differ so often 
and so much as they do. Above all, the traits of each individual wri- 
ter, whatever his sources of information were, would occasion, as in- 
deed it actually has occasioned, a great variety oftentimes in phraseolo- 
gy and wsus loguendi. © , 

As to the Gospel of John, we need resort to no other human sources 
but to those of his own mind and memory. His diction, and every thing 
else, is confessedly his own, and is sui generis. 

If any choose to say, that besides the sources thus pointed out, the 
Evangelists also resorted to the διηγήσεις of the many, to whom Luke 
refers ; this is altogether a possible and supposable case, but, consider- 
ing the character of these διηγήσεις, not altogether probable. Why 


GOSPELS OF LUKE AND JOHN. 191 


should the Evangelists take up with inferior sources of information, 
when superior ones were within their reach ? 

I cannot conclude this long note upon an almost endlessly disputed 
subject, without subjoining a single remark more. This is, that nearly 
all the writers who have made out theories about the origin of the three 
first Gospels, seem to have left out of sight any consideration of the zn- 
spiration of the authors. In this I cheerfully and unreservedly profess 
my belief; but the arguments in favor of it do not belong to this place. 
Inspiration does not, indeed, set aside at all the characteristic style of 
different writers ; nor does it exclude efforts on their part to investigate, 
as we see in the caseof Luke 1: 1—4; but it will, of course, wherever 
it exists, modify in a greater or less degree any writing with which it is 
concerned. Why should it be so wholly overlooked by the critical theo- 
rists, who write upon the γένεσες of the Gospels? 


Note 17. Gospel of Fuke. (δὰ 33—48, p. 387 seq.) 


Most of what Hug says, is concerned with the analysis of Luke’s 
Gospel, and is designed to shew how we may conceive of his having 
succeeded Matthew and Mark, and made use of both their Gospels. As 
I understand Luke’s prooem, this: supposition is quite inadmissible. 
Hug has taken great pains with his analysis and with his comparison of 
Luke with Matthew and Mark, and shewn not a little acuteness as to a 
choice of means to make out the propositions at which he is aiming. 
But as I entertain radical doubts of the correctness of his results, and 
this for the reasons above stated, I need not dwell on what he has said 
at so much length. In my apprehension, it would be quite as easy to 
make out different results by a like process of analysis and comparison ; 
and when all was thus done, should we be any nearer to ground that 
would support us? Let the never ending variations of genetic theo- 
ries answer this question. 


Nore 18. Gospel of John. (§ 49 seq. p. 420 seq.) 


~The analysis of Hug in §§ 49—57, and the proof which he deduces 
from the result of them as to the /ater composition of John’s Gospel, may 
satisfy the minds of those who place dependence on this kind of reason- 
ing for the establishment of such conclusions. ‘That there are statements 
in the Gospel of John which suppose the readers to be acquainted with 
the facts related in the other Gospels, will not be denied. But whether 
the knowledge thus supposed came orally to the readers, like that of 
Theophilus to him; or whether it was derived from written Gospels ; 
who can decide? 

Nothing is plainer, than that John has a doctrinal object particularly 

91 


722 NOTE XVIII. 


in view. Many things that he says, certainly have more emphasis, 
when we suppose them to have been said antithetically, i. e. against the 
Gnostics, the Cerinthians, the Zabians, and others. But no terra fir- 
ma can well be won here. ‘The question, whether his design was polem- 
ic, is still involved in more uncertainty than Hug seems to suppose or 
to admit. 

The most considerable opponent to the genuineness of the Gospel of 
John, is Bretschneider, in his Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum 
Johannis Indole ete., 1820. Hug has passed in review most of his 
main positions, in § 58 seq. ‘The Alogiin ancient times denied the au- 
thority of this Gospel. Evanson, Vogel, Horst, Ballenstedt, Cludius, 
and some others of less note, have also denied it within the last forty 

ears. ‘The main reasons assigned are, (1) ‘ Vhat John, a fisherman of 
Galilee, could not have had the knowledge which was necessary in or- 
der to write his Gospel in such a manner as it is written.’ 

The answer to this is, the facts as detailed in § 10, p. 342 of Hug. 

A fisherman on the Lake of Tiberias would be very likely to know 
the Greek language, because of the great variety of persons assembled 
at such places for business and trade: and he would almost of course be 
necessitated to understand it, in order to carry on his business. Be- 
sides, the employment was by no means an ignoble one among the 
Jews; nor is there any thing which shews, or even renders it probable, 
that the parents of John, or that he himself, was in very indigent cir- 
cumstances. Above all; if we suppose John to have written late in 
life, after he had been many years at Ephesus, what difficulty can be 
made as to his knowledge of Greek ? 

(2) ‘The Gospel of John, in its prooem, philosophizes too deeply 
about the Logos, for a fisherman of the Lake.’ 

The answer to this would be, that the conclusion which represents 
him as philosophizing at all, results from erroneous and constructive in- 
terpretation. To me John seems to have taken simple and radical 
ground, which upsets indeed all the Logos philosophy of the Greeks, 
or the emanation-philosophy of the East, but which still has little if any 
designed antithetic reference to either of these. 

(3) ‘ There are many self contradictions in this Gospel.’ 

So indeed there are, if such exegesis is to be admitted as makes out 
the declarations of John to be contradictions. The contradiction, 
however, is shewn to be between such exegeses and the laws of herme- 
nuetics or ground principles of philology. ‘ 

(4) ‘ This Gospel exhibits errors as to history, antiquities, and geograme 

hy.’ ᾿ 
i Recent commentaries, such as those of Kuinoel, Liicke, and Tho- 
luck, have shewn how little foundation there is for such an objection ; 
but especially the works of defence, which will be mentioned in the se- 
quel, have still more effectually done this. 

In regard to the alleged “‘irreconcileable difference” between John 
and the other Evangelists, as to the account of the time when Jesus 
with his disciples last celebrated the passover, Hug has done what could 
be done, while one limits himself merely to external history, and does 
not investigate the proper idiom of the Scriptures. The solution which 
he offers, however, seems altogether improbable, as it appears to my 


GOSPEL OF JOHN. 723 


mind. 1 find nothing which vouches for it in any good degree, that 
there was any difference among the Jews, as to the time when the pass- 
over itself was to be actually celebrated ; nothing in the evangelical ac- 
counts of the last supper, which goes to shew at all that an unusual sea- 
son was chosen for it; nothing in the Jewish views of this ordinance 
which would render such an occurrence at all probable. Some may have 
commenced their holy time earlier than others; although the testimony 
cited by Hug from the Mishna and Gemara would serve but little pur- 
pose to establish this in respect to the time of the Saviour; but this 
would not render certain the proposition, that they therefore actually 
celebrated the passover itself before the usual time. 

J. H. Rauch (translated and published in the Bib. Repos. Vol. IV. 
No. 13. Art. V.) has taken wholly a different course from Hug, and one 
altogether built upon the usus loquendi of the sacred writings; and he 
has shewn in this way, what had not before been so effectually shewn, 
that there is a substantial harmony among all the Evangelists in relation 
to this matter. ‘To him I would earnestly refer the reader. Questions 
of this kind are not the element in which Hug appears to move with 
the most dexterity or success. 

As to what Hug says on p. 446, in order to defend John’s interpreta- 
tion of Noy (Σιλωάμ) by ἀπεσταλμένος, it will afford little or no satis- 
faction, I think, to the intelligent philological reader; for the amount 
of it is, that John gives tothe name StAwau a mystic interpretation. 
This is solving one difficulty by introducing another still greater. Be- 
sides, it betrays a want of Hebrew etymological knowledge in the wri- 
ter. The Hebrew m>vi comes from n>, to send, send out, emit, ete. 
The form m>w may be resolved in two ways; viz., it may be regarded 
either as a noun like 75792, disquietude ; 355°D, sparks; 7V27D, dis- 
taff ; 7i0°>, smoke; or else as a noun presenting a forma dagessata 
which is resolved by omitting the Dagesh and inserting a Yodh, like 
wisp and ΣΦ Ἴ 2}. Nouns of this last form, i. e. of the forma dagessata, 
are 425 ,adrunkard ; 3)>>, natus ; 2578, hostiliter tractatus. In con- 
formity with these last forms, ΤΠ ΣΦ may mean ἀπεσταλμένος as John has 
rendered it; or if any one prefers the first solution, it is merely the ab- 
stract (emissio) put for the concrete, i. 6. for emissus, ἀπεσταλμένος ; an 
occurrence too frequent in Hebrew to create any wonder or doubt, a- 
mong those who are not disposed to doubt for reasons other than philo- 
logical. : 

(5) ‘ The delineation of the person, character, and doctrines of the Sa- 


δ 0: by the Gospel of John, differs from that in any other of the canon- 
1 ; 


cal Gospels.’ 

The answer to this is, that the style and manner of John are unques- 
tionably different from those of the other Evangelists. The special ob- 
ject of his Gospel, which is a doctrinal one, would also of course be 
the occasion of some diversity in his narration. The fact that he has 
almost entirely omitted any thing done by Jesus, except what was done 
at Jerusalem and in its near neighborhood, makes a wide difference be- 
tween John and his fellow-writers. They confine themselves mainly 
to what was done in Galilee. John has little of mere history of facts, 
almost all his Gospel being made up of the discourses of Jesus ; while 
this is just the reverse in the other Evangelists. 


724 NOTE XVIII. 


But how can we make any thing more out of this, than that each 
writer had hisown particular design and stand-point, and that he pursued 
his own particular object? Has not Matthew, Mark, Luke, each their 
peculiarities? Each matter appropriate to himself only? This must 
be allowed. All then that can be said of John is, that his Gospel is pe- 
culiarly swe generis. This lies indeed upon the very face of his plan 
and style. But to deduce from this the conclusion, that he describes a 
different Messiah and other doctrines than what are found in the Gospels 

_of his coadjutors, is assuming a conclusion much broader than the prem- 
ises will support. 

It would be easy to shew, that all the main “points of the Messiah’s 
character, doctrines, and sufferings, are the same in all the Gospels of 
our Canon. This has been done ; but my limits forbid me even to at- 
tempt a synopsis of the considerations which have been proffered, in or- 
der to satisfy the minds of inquirers and doubters in respect to this 
point. I canonly refer the reader to Heydenreich, Uber die Behaup- 
ting dass Jesus in den drei synoptischen Evangelien ganz anders er- 
scheine als in dem Johanneischen, in Héydenreich and Hiiffell’s Zeit- 
schrift ftir Predigerwissenschaften, B. I. heft 1, 2. 1827. Also Retberg, 
An Johannes in exhibenda Jesu natura reliq. canon. Scriptis vere re- 
pugnet, 1826; Borger, De constanti et aequabili Jesu Christi Indole, 
etc. 1816; Moller, Comm. de Genii ac Indolis Evangelii Johannis pri- 
or. Evang. diversa, etc, 1816; Reinecke, De Constanti ete. J. C. In- 
dole, Ingenio, Doctrina, et docendi Ratione, etc. 1827. Schott’s Isa- 
goge § 38, especially Note 4 under this, where a summary may be found, 
made with much ability, of the leading points in respect to the subject 
under consideration. 

In regard to Bretschneider’s Probabilia, in which he has expressed 
all the doubts of former or latter times with respect to the genuineness 
of the Gospel of John, it might be sufficient to say, that the author has 
himself publicly and ingenuously retracted them, and declared that his 
object in publishing such a book was, to elicit more able defences of the 
Gospel in question than had hitherto been made. Whether this latter 
circumstance be altogether as candid an avowal as that of his retrac- 
tion, might be questioned by some who know the love of paradox and 
of appearing before the public eye in a new and strange dress, which, is 
so predominant among not asmall class of the German literati. But be 
this as it may, Bretschneider’s book has called forth a number of learn- 
ed and able essays, in opposition to his doubts. A few of them, which 
are particularly distinguished, should be here named. Crome, Probe 
bilia haud probabilia, an Essay which obtained the prize at Leipsic in — 
1824. Hemsen, Die Echtheit der Schriften des Evang. Johannis, 1823. 
Usteri, Comm. critica, in qua Evangelium Johannis genuinum esse, 
etc., 1823. Also Olshausen, in his Aechtheit der vier canon, Evange- 
lien, p. 246 seq. 

For the historical evidence, derived from the testimony of the an- 
cient fathers, Lardner, Schmidt, Less, and almost all the introductions 
to the New Testament, specially Schott’s Isagoge, § 37, Note 5, will 
afford a sufficient Conspectus. The reader may consult a fuller exhibi- 
tion, in Calmberg, Diss. theolog. de antiquissimis Patrum Testimonis, 
etc. 1822. In Lampe’s Comm., in those of Liicke, Tholuck, and oth- 


OBJECT AND PLAN OF JOHN’S GOSPEL. 725 


ers, summaries of this evidence may also be found. The question, as I 
am disposed to believe, is now finally put to rest, except among that class 
of writers who are excited to assail positions from the very fact that 
they are generally regarded as unassailable. 


Nore 19. Object and Plan of John’s Gospel. (δ 53, p. 425 seq.) 


The copious and laboured analysis of John’s Gospel, in this and the 
ten following sections, and the comparison of it with other Gospels, al- 
though not wanting in the display of acuteness and ingenuity, do not 
afford any solid conviction or satisfaction to my own mind, in respect to 
the main positions which the writer is labouring to establish, viz., that 
John had seen and made use of the other Gospels, and intended his 
own to be rather a kind of supplement to them, than a work complete 
in itself. 

John was himself an original witness. He needed no aid from for- 
eign sources, in order to write his Gospel. And although Eusebius, Je- 
rome, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others of the ancient church, and 
Michaelis, Storr, Schulze, Hug, and many others in modern times, have 
asserted or defended the supplementary character of John’s Gospel, yet 
there are several reasons why we may doubt of this. 

(1) John has not only repeated a considerable number of things con- 


~ 


tained in the other Gospels, but almost in the same words. Let the read- ἡ 


er compare, now, 
John 2:16. Luke 19: 46. . Mark 1{: 17. Matt. 21:18. 2+ 


3: 35. 

ΝΜ. 

ai 10: 22. 11: 27. 
10: 15. | 

4: 35. _ 9: 37 seq. 
4: 44. 13: 57. 
12: 7, 8. 20: 11,.12. 
19; 25. 10: 25, 10, 39. 
13: 20. 10: 16. 10: 40. 

14: 19, 18: 19 seq. 
17:2. 28: 18 seq. 


(2) Even longer narrations in the other Gospels are contained almost 
entire in that of John. E.g. John 2: 14—16. 6; 1—21. 12: 1—19. 
Finally, most things in the history of the crucifixion, etc. 

(3) That John has omitted many things contained in the other Gos- 
pels, is obvious at first sight, and this would indeed be the case on the 
ground that his Gospel is supplementary. 

(4) The traits of discrepancy as to manner and circumstances be- 
tween John and the other Evangelists, where they speak of the same 
thing, are very numerous. One circumstance, moreover, in regard 
to the general tenor of John’s Gospel, is very striking. John has a 
regular account of all the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, after his minis- 


726 NOTE XIX. 


try had commenced ; and the other Evangelists contain nothing of this 
kind excepting the journey just before the crucifixion, by which we 
could definitely ascertain whether the public life of Jesus was one or 
many years, 

(5) If John designed his Gospel merely as a supplement to the oth- 
ers, and for the purpose of illustrating what was left undefined or some- 
what obscure in them, how comes it that he has left so many of those 
things wholly untouched ? 

(6) Finally, John has himself told us the object of his Gospel, near the 
close of it, viz., to shew that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, in or- 
der that men might believe on him and be saved. He has no where 
hinted at any design on his part to supply the defects of others, or to ap- 
pear as in aid of them, or even as the coadjutor. How could it well be, 
that he should no where have developed any hint of this nature, if the 
theory of Hug is well founded ? 

Hug seems much to rely on this consideration, viz., that ‘John has 
omitted the more important arguments and facts in favor of his position, 
relying upon it that his readers were in possession of the other Gospels.’ 
So Prof. Hug may judge. John, we may suppose however, formed a 
different opinion. He tells us that the sayings and doings of Jesus were 
so numerous, that ‘ the world would not contain the books which must be 
written, in case they were all reported.’ Ofcourse he made, and he in- 
tended to make, only a small selection. Why now should we suppose 
he would omit those things that he deemed most important to his spe- 
cific purpose? I trust he did not; and therefore that he and Prof. Hug 
differ in their judgment in relation to this matter. 


I have already remarked, in passing, that the question whether John 
had a polemic design in view, when he wrote his Gospel, is not so plain 
and certain as Hug in various places (δὲ 51, 52, alibi) seems to consider 
it. (1) Many critics suppose that a sect sprung from John the Baptist, 
who held him to be the promised Messiah. Traces of such a sect they 
find in Luke 3: 15. Acts 19: 25. 18: 25. 19: 1—5. For proof that 
John has reference to them in his Gospel, they appeal to John 1: 7, 8, 
15, 19—34, 36. 3: 26 seq. 5: 33 seq. 10: 41, etc. So Overbeck, Neue 
Versuche ueber das Evangelium Johannis, 1784. Storr, Ueber den 
Zweck der evang. Geschichte, etc. Ziegler, Bemerkungen ueber das 
Evangelium Johannis, in Gabler’s neuest. theol. Journal, B. 9. St. 1. 
Michaelis in his Introduction to the New Testament; Hug as in the 
text; and many others. But Paulus, Cap. Select. Introduct. ad N. Test. _ 
p. 153 ; Eichhorn in his Hinleit. in das N. Test.; Tittmann in his Mele- 
temata Sacra; Kuinoel, in his Commentary ; and others, have denied 
that the Gospel of John has any such designed bearing upon the dis- 
ciples of John, as Storr and others maintain. 

(2) In like manner many have supposed that John intended, in a par- 
ticular manner, to oppose Cerinthus, who was contemporary with him, 
and seems to have denied that the Saviour possessed any thing more 
than a nature merely human. So Storr, Michaelis, and Hug, as cited 
above ; and so Semler in his Paraphrasis in Evang. Johann. ; Wegschei- 
der in his Versuch einer volstind. Einleitung in das Evang. Johann. 
1806 ; Kaiser in his Comment. de apolegeticis Evang. Johan. consi- 
liis, etc.; and also others. To these are opposed, Lampe, Comm. in 


SS συ 


OBJECT AND PLAN OF JOHN’S GOSPEL. 727 


Johan. I. p. 172 seq.; Tittmann, Paulus, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, as quoted 
above ; Liicke, Comm. in Johan. I. p. 227 seq., and others. 

It appears from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and 
Theodoret, that Cerinthus taught that a celestial spirit (αἰὼν) descend- 
ed upon Jesus at his baptism, and left him before his crucifixion ; and 
that this spirit was not the Movoyevyg or the Aoyog, but one of sub- 
ordinate rank, who dwelt in Jesus, and enabled him to perform his mir- 
acles. To these views John 1: 3, 18. 17: 1—5. 14; 9 etc., and espe- 
cially 1 John 2:22, seem to be peculiarly opposed. 

(3) The Nicolaitans are mentioned by Irenaeus (advers. Haeres. IIT. 
11), as opposed by John. But whether this is only a tropical name or 
appellative, given to certain false teachers in the early church, who main- 
tained the lawfulness of eating flesh offered to idols and of venereal in- 
dulgencies ; or whether it isa proper name derived from Nicholas or 
Nicholaus some unknown author of this heresy; is a question the an- 
swer to which is not yet made out. See Nov. Test. Kopp. Tom. X. p. 
146. Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. Eichhorn, Comm. in Apoc. (on Rev. 2: 
15). Comp. Schott’s Isagoge, § 40, Note 7. 

(4) The Docetae are also included by some, among those whom 
John opposed in his writings. So Semler in his Paraphrasis; Ecker- 
mann in his Erklarung aller dunkeln Stellen des N. Test. II. p. 5. seq. ; 
Bertholdt, Einleit. III. p. 1818; Schmidt, Bibliothek fiir biblische 
Kritik, I. p. 73. But this is not admitted by Hug; and Kuinoel and 
Kaiser (as quoted above), and De Wette in his Einleit., deny this. To 
me there seem to be passages in the writings of John, which can hardly 
be accounted for on any other ground than that of éntended opposition 
to an opinion like that of the Docetae; e. g. 1 John 1: 1,2. 4: 2 seq. 
2 John v. 7. John 1: 14. Comp. 19: 34. 20:20, 27. See Schott, § 40, 
Note 8. ᾿ 

The most probable result of an investigation respecting these partic- 
ular designs attributed to John in his Gospel, seems to me to be, that 
while it cannot well be denied that there were Zabians, Cerinthians, 
Nicolaitans (cither in a general or a particular sense), and Docetae, in 
the time of John; and that all these sects (with Gnosticism yet imper- 
fectly developed) existed in Asia Minor, and probably in and around 
Ephesus ; yet a design properly and specifically polemic, can hardly be 
attributed to John; certainly not in his Gospel. I cannot doubt, for he 
has told us, that his principal aim was to shew that Jesus was the Son of 
God and the true Messiah. Nor can I doubt, therefore, that whatever 
sect was then and there in opposition to this truth, or taught what was 
at variance with it, when and where John first wrote his Gospel, this 
sect was virtually opposed by his Gospel. There is much emphasis and 
force given to several passages in his writings, by applying them to one 
and another of the various sects named. But I regard the apostle, on 
the whole, as designing rather ‘to refute error by teaching the truth,’ 
than as having engaged in designs directly and avowedly polemic. 
Avowedly, indeed, they certainly are not; for where in his Gospel has 
he referred expressly to any of the sects named? ‘That what he says 
may have some bearing upon them, and actually does have one, I can- 
not well doubt. But that the apostle entered the lists as a disputant, 
does not seem from the tenor of his writings, at large, to be capable of 
satisfactory proof. 


728 NOTE Xx. 


Nore 20. Time and place of composing the Gospel of John; language 
in which it was written. (ἢ 64. p. 455. 


On these questions the author has given but little information, and 
nothing to satisfy the critical inquirer. In ᾧ 65—70, he endeavours in- 
deed to shew, that John’s first Epistle was written to the churches at 
Ephesus, while the author was ina state of banishment at Patmos; 
that his Gospel was also probably written at the same place ; and that 
the first Epistle was in fact written as an accompaniment and designed 
as a kind of introduction to the Gospel. As Hug supposes the banish- 
ment of John to have taken place under Domitian, he of course must 
suppose the Gospel and the first Epistle not to have been written until 
about A. D. 97 or 98. 

Of Hug’s views respecting John’s first Epistle, I shall speak in the 
sequel. In opposition to his view respecting the ate composition of 
John’s Gospel, several suggestions may be made. 

(1) John 5: 2, ἔστε δὲ ἐν τοῖς ‘/egooodimors ... . κολυμβήϑρα. Af- 
ter all that has been said about enallage temporis, in the New Testament, 
and specially in John, there is solid reason to distrust the confounding 
of tenses by any writer of common sense. We may be, and often are, 
ignorant how often one Praeterite, for example, was employed in the 
place of another, because that other had gone into desuetude, or was 
cacophonous ; in such a case we are not well qualified to judge about 
enallage temporis ; certainly not to decide that the instance in question 
is one of this nature. In some other instances it is a matter of indiffer- 
ence which of two or three Praeterites is used, inasmuch as the nature 
of the case admits either to be employed without any impropriety. We 
should not be hasty, therefore, in making out these enallages of tense; 
which, if absolutely taken, only mean that a writer has voluntarily, or 
through ignorance, violated the common_laws of the Greek language. 
To say, then, that ἔστι is here put for ἦν, is saying something which 
should not be said without some definite and satisfactory ground. But 
to assume, in the first place, that the Gospel of John was written near 
the close of the first century, and then to construe ἔστι as if it were 
ἦν, iS a ὕστερον πρότερον in argument. 

Still, the city of Jerusalem may have been destroyed, and the baths 
or bath-house rebuilt, when John wrote his Gospel. Eusebius (Ono- 
masticon, v. δηξζηϑα) speaks of the pool, etc., as well known in his 
time. The designation of place by ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῆ, may be under- 
stood as meaning the place which was anctently called by this name. 
All this is possible ; nor can it be pronounced to be very improbable. 
Still my impression from reading the whole Gospel of John is, that if 
Jerusalem had been laid in ruins before he wrote it, some hint, some 
expression of feeling in relation to this melancholy event, some appeal 
to the notable prophecy of the Saviour respecting it as having been ful- 
filled, must have appeared here or there in the Gospel. How could 
John every where so completely suppress the rising and even inyolunta- 
ry sigh which would heave his breast? How could he fail to mention 
so striking and palpable a proof, that Jesus was the Messiah, the duly 
commissioned Messenger of God? At all events, the most natural exe- 


at νὴ tes to 


TIME OF JOHN’S GOSPEL, ETC. 729 


egesis of John 5: 2 is, that when John wrote, Jerusalem was then in 
the like state and condition as at the time when the Saviour performed 
the miracle at Bethesda. 

Again (3) in John 21: 18 the words of our Saviour respecting Peter’s 
martyrdom are related. As this took place in A. D. 67, or near this 
time, how could John, or (if any one denies the genuineness of this 21st 
chapter), how could some disciple of his who published John’s Gospel 
and added this last chapter, have omitted to refer to the death of Peter, 
which had happened some 30 years before, if Hug and others who think 
with him are to be credited ? 

The fact that John employs ἣν (Imperf.) instead of the present tense 
(gore), in reference to places, in 18: 1. 19:41. 11: 18, proves nothing, as 
the matter is respectively circumstanced. ‘The historian is in each case 
relating past events; and in such a case, nothing is more common or 
natural than to speak of the place where these events happened, in the 
past tense. This is all which can be made out, from such instances as 
these. 

When the appeal is made to John 21: 23, “If I will that he [John] 
should continue until I come, what is that to thee?” as affording an ar- 
gument in favour of this Gospel being written in the advanced age of 
John ; there seems to be no force in the appeal, unless we assume, that 
Jesus could not have uttered this in a prophetic way, so that John could 


understand it until he should have attained to an advanced age. But 


what dependence can we place on an argument of such a nature? 

Finally, when writers appeal tothe Greek style of John’s Gospel, and 
tell us that it bears marks of great improvement upon that of the Apoc- 
alypse, and shews that John had been many more years conversant with 
the Greek language when he wrote the former; I cannot sympathize 
with them, and do not so judge. Let Winer’s Programm on the alleged 
soloecisms of the Apocalypse be read ; let the reader be deeply conver- 
sant with the Hebrew prophets and familiar with their style and man- 
ner, their abrupt transitions, change of person, Nominatives independ- 
ent, and the like; then let him call to mind the perfectly simple and 
prosaic character of John’s Gospel in its narrations, and the close imi- 
tation (as we have good reason to believe), or the exact report, of Jesus’ 
discourses even in the manner of their diction; let him afterwards 
come to the reading of the Apocalypse, and mark how the diction of 
every part of it is built upon the Hebrew prophets, how entirely it is 
Hebrew poetry in its very soul and essence, how exceedingly diverse 
the matter of it is from that of the Gospels, and how diverse the manner 
must be also in order to present the genuine stamp of Hebrew prophet- 
ic composition—let him take all this into view, and also the further fact 
that the text of the Apocalypse is as yet less ‘purified than that of any 
other book of the New Testament; and he will then hesitate about 
drawing an argument as to the lateness of John’s Gospel, from the su- 
perior character of its Greek. This superiority, I am fully persuaded, 
cannot be satisfactorily made out. 

In a word, the testimonies of the ancients are, that John removed 
from Palestine to Asia Minor, where he taught extensively, and fixed his 
abode at Ephesus. So Clemens Alex. in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. III. 28. 
Irenaeus, advers. Haeres. I. 2. c. 22.§ 5. 1. 8. ο. l.¢.3.§ 4. Origen, 

92 


730 NOTE XXI. 


in Euseb. H. E. III. 1. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in Euseb. III. 
31. Jerome, Catal. Scriptt.c.9. That John must have gone there af- 
ter Paul wrote his epistles, would seem clear from the fact, that neither 
his presence nor labours are adverted to in Rom. 15: 20. 2 Cor. 10: 16; 
nor in the epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, or Timothy, written 
when Paul was in prison at Rome. John therefore must have gone to 
Ephesus, after A. D. 60 or 62. 

Vhat he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, the more ancient witnesses 
agree ; 6. σ. Irenaeus, advers. Haeres. III. 1. Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. IIT. 
24.V.8. VI. 14. Jerome, Catal. Scriptt.c.9. That he wrote it after 
the three other Gospels were written, these witnesses also declare ; and 
so Storr, Herder, and most modern critics have felt inclined to decide. 
But this latter position can never be satisfactorily made out. 

The reader who wishes for more ample discussion, may consult the 
various Introductions to the New Testament, and in particular those of 
Lampe to his Comm. in Johan.; Wegscheider, Versuch einer volstan- 
diger Einleitung, etc., p. 190 seq. Liicke Comm. iiber Johannem, I. p. 
121 seq. Schott’s Isagoge, §} 36—43. 


That John wrote in Greek, the examples of explanation in regard to 
Hebrew words and things, referred to by Hug in ᾧ 64, would seem 
abundantly to shew. Why should he interpret the most common and 
obvious Hebrew words, (N52, MANDI, We, etc.), if he were wri- 
ting in Hebrew, and’ for Hebrew readers 4 : 

It is to be regretted that Hug, instead of occupying his readers, as he 
has done, with speculations about the supplementary character of John’s 
Gospel, had not given more of substantial discussion in respect to other 
circumstances, in which we have a deeper interest. 


Note 9]. First Epistle of John. (§ 65. p. 456.) 


The very first declaration with which Hug commences his account 
of this Epistle, is one which I should be far from regarding as certain. 
On the other hand, I find nothing in all the first epistle of John, which 
obliges me to suppose that he refers in it to his written Gospel. That 
there is the same doctrine in the Epistle as in the Gospel, the same 
style or manner of writing both as to diction and the construction of 
sentences, the same glowing spirit of love to God and man, the same 
ardent attachment to the Saviour and zeal for his honour and glory— 
must be evident, I think, to every intelligent and impartial reader. 
From the most ancient times this has been acknowledged and felt. 
Scarcely a doubt has been raised, until recently, in respect to the genu- 
ineness of this first Epistle; notwithstanding it has neither subscription 
nor inscription. Butall this does not shew, that it was designed as a pre- 
face, or an accompaniment, or a defence, to the Gospel of John. All this, 
moreover, we may suppose and fully credit, without drawing any other 
conclusion from the reading of the epistle, than that John had preached 


oe eS eS στ᾿ 


ων 


FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. ΠΟ 


and taught familiarly and fully, among those whom he here addresses, 
the doctrines to which he specially adverts, particularly in the beginning 
of his Epistle, but occasionally elsewhere, ‘That he addresses his own 
disciples, there can hardly be any doubt, if we look at the manner of his 
writing. How can it be shewn, as Hug assumes, that there is “‘ a visible 
reference in the Epistle to the Gospel ?” 

Hug, however, stands not alone in respect to his views concerning the 
original design of this Epistle. Berger in his Versuch einer moral. 
Einleit ins. N. Test. If. p. 118; Storr in his Zweck der evang. Ge- 
schichte, etc. p. 315 seq. ; Augusti in his Kathol. Briefe, II. p. 182s 
have suggested like views; one regarding it as containing a practical 
part of the Gospel or supplement to it, another as a polemic part in de- 
fence of it, and the third as a letter of recommendation or introduction 
to it. All these views the reader may find fully examined and refuted, 
in Liicke’s Preface to his Comm. on this Epistle. How can it be ac- 
counted for, that all antiquity should have severed the epistle, as to its 
location in the Canon, from the Gospel, if it originally was combined 
or immediately connected with it? That in the Cod. Cantab., there 
stands at the end of John’s Gospel and before the Acts a note by some 
transcriber, which would seem to signify that the Epistles of Joha end 
there, and the Acts follows (as Hug declares, p. 462), proves nothing, 
except that some erroneous or idle hand had added something in that 
place which does not belong there; or at the most, that instead of the 
Acts, the copyist meant at first to transcribe the Epistles of John, but 
afterwards abandoned his purpose. 

To suppose, with Hug (p. 464), that John wrote his Gospel at Patmos, 
and must therefore have sent a ee of introduction with it, because he 
could not introduce it in propria persona, is arguing in a way sufficient- 
ly unsatisfactory. Why could not John have done as Luke did, i 
send his Gospel to some distinguished individual friend, who, he well 
knew, would take care of it and publishit? Then, again, how could 
John have written his Gospel, in a state of banishment, and never have 
even once adverted in it to any thing which leads us at all to conjecture 
that such were his circumstances? Or how could his first epistle have 
been written in the like condition? Suppositions like those which Hug 
makes in relation to these matters, need at least some probabilities in 
their favour, in the absence of all ancient tradition and testimony in 
their behalf. Unfortunately they have neither the one nor the other to 
support them. 

That the Epistle was written dater than the Gospel, I should think 
quite probable from the tone of it. ‘The various errors to which it ap- 
parently adverts, are here more definitely and strongly characterized 
and denounced than in the Gospel. The animadversions upon them 
seem to assume the decided tone of repeated admonition. 

Different writers have found in this epistle opposition to different 
classes of heretics. Thus Loefiler finds Jews and Judaizers opposed ; 


Dissert., Joan. Epist. I. Gnosticos imprimis impugnari negatur, in- 


Comm, Theol. I. Others have supposed that epee Christians, and 
Ebjionites or apostate Christians, are opposed; e.g. Semler, in his 
Paraph. Johan. ; Tittmann, in his De Vestigiis Gnosticorum, etc., p. 179 
seq. Knapp, in his Script. var. Argument. p. 157. Lange, Schrift. 


oye 


732 NOTE XXI. 


des Johann. III. 19 seq. Eichh. Einleit. IL. 291 seq. Others suppose 
that the Gnostics were principally aimed at; 6. g. Michaelis, 11, ed. 4, 
p- 1522. Kleuker, Johannes, Petrus, and Paulus, als Christologen 
betrachet, 1785. Others still have regarded the Docetae as the sect 
principally opposed in John’s first Epistle ; 6. g. Schmidt, Einleit. II. p. 
318. Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. p. 8250. Niemeyer, Comm. de Docetis, 
Halle, 1823, Liicke, Comm. Pref. p.62 seq. So Vitringa also thought, 
Obs. Sac. V. 20; and so have many others. Schott and De Wette do 
not dissent from a modified view of this latter sentiment ; while they do 
not suppose the main design of the epistle to have been in any good 
measure polemic. 

That the heresy of the Docetae, who taught that Christ was only in 
appearance and seemingly, but not in reality, a man consisting of areal 
body and soul, was extant in the apostolic age, there seems to be no 
good reason to deny. That 1 John 1: 1—3 and 4: 1—6 were design- 
ed to oppose or gainsay the doctrine of this sect, one can scarcely 
doubt. What could be the object of the apostle in making such spe- 
cific, repeated, and pointed asseverations respecting the real humanity 
of the Saviour, unless it were to oppose some error like that of the Do- 
cetae? Compare particularly 2 John, v. 7. 

That in his first epistle, as in his Gospel, John designs to oppose sev- 
eral and various errors, in passing, I cannot well doubt. Let the read- 
er examine chap. 2: 18—27. The aviiyororos here characterized, no 
doubt means some particular erroneous opinions, or party schism (v. 19), 
or practical ungodliness, which prevailed to some extent in the church 
or churches whom the apostle addressed in his letter. All that we can 
learn, however, from the passage, warm and animated as the strain of it 
is, amounts to no more than the generic idea, that there was a theoreti- 
cal or practical denial that Jesus is the Christ ; see v.22. This 15 after- 
wards called denying the Son; and he who does this, is said also to de- 
ny the Father. ‘That some false teachers were actively engaged in 
spreading heretical sentiments in relation to this subject, is evident 
from v. 26, τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς. But whether these deceivers were 
Ebionites, ‘Judaizers, Gnostics, or Docetae, or some other heretics, can 
not well be determined from the passage under examination. 

Excepting this passage, and the two above adverted to, there is little 
in this epistle except warm-hearted and paternal admonition and ex- 
hortation to love, faith, mutual kindness, and good will. Holiness 
and benevolence the writer considers as indissolubly connected with 
steadfast faithin Christ, and adherence to the simple traths of his Gospel. 

That John was somewhat advanced in life, when he wrote this epis- 
tle, seems probable from his use of the word τεέκχνία so often in his ad- 
dresses. Yet those who rely very much on this should remember, that 
the Saviour addresses his disciples with the same appellation, in John 
13: 33, some (probably most) of whom were older than himself. So 
Paul also addresses the Galatians, 4:19. Evidently it is only a compel- 
lation of endearment. Or, if we argue from it in respect to the compar- 
ative age of the writer, what shall we say when John (2: 13) addresses 
a portion of those to whom he wrote by the appellation πατέρες 1 If 
any thing is thus to be deduced from these various compellations, it 
must be this, viz., that most of those whom John addressed were 


SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 733 


younger than himself; while some others were older than himself. Ez- 
treme old age, therefore, cannot be assumed by this mode of reasoning, 
as it has been by many, as the probable time of John’s writing his first 
epistle. The Geschwatzigkeit (prattle) of old age, and senile repeti- 
tions, which Eichhorn and others have found in it, belong rather to 
their exegetical tact, than to the writer of the epistle. 

Meagre and unsatisfactory, on the whole, is Hug’s account through- 
out of the writings of John. The most interesting matters he has treat- 
ed ina superficial way. 


Nore 22. Second Epistle of John. (δ᾽ 71. p. 465.) 


In what manner Hug deduces from the language of this epistle, the 
conclusion that the apostle was in exile when he wrote it, I do not see. 
To argue from v. 7, ‘‘ Having many things to write to you, I would not 
do it with paper and ink, for Ἵ hope to be with you, etc.” that the apos- 
tle was in want of writing materials (p. 465), is singular indeed. Where 
then did he get materials for writing δε Gospel and first Epistle, both 
of which, Hug supposes, were written in exile? How very singular, 
too, that the exile of hea should be in the habit of receiving famil- 
iar and friendly visits? (p. 465). Did the Roman Government. permit 
exiles to lonely places to be treated thus? 

Then again, how could John in exile for an indefinite time, expect 
soon to see the worthy individual to whom his second epistle is address- 
ed, and speak with, her face to face ? 

Ina word; can we well doubt that the writer of 2 John was at lib- 
erly, when he wrote this Epistle ? 

As to the address, ἐκλεχτῇ κυρίᾳ, it seems at last to be pretty well 
agreed, that if éxdexr7) were designed to_be considered as a proper 
name, the location would have been thus, τῇ κυρίᾳ ἔκλεχτ ἢ, or ἔχλε EXT) 
τῇ κυρίᾳ. That Kugia was often a proper name of females among the 
Greeks, there is no doubt ; see Gruteri Inscriptt. p. 1127. Schott and 
De Wette both decide in favour of Kvgia (Cyria) as ἃ proper name, 
and ἐχλεχτῇ as an epithet. From a comparison of 3 John, v. 1, this 
opinion seems to be probable. 

Asto the assumption of Hug, that this second letter of John was 
written immediately after the first, and despatched along with it—it 
seems to me as little supported, as that the first letter was written at the 
same time with his Gospel. How came it, that the second and third 
epistles of John were considered by some as of doubtful authenticity, 
even so early as the days of Origen ; δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην, ἐπεὶ OV παν- 
TES φασὶ γνησίους εἶναι ταύτας, are the words of Origen quoted in 
Euseb. Ece. Hist. VI. 25. Had all three epistles been sent to the 
churches at the sametime with the Gospel, and all been deemed as in- 
troductory to it, or explanatory of it, or as designed to enforce it, then 
would the appendices have been attached of course to the main volume, 
and gone into credit or discredit along with it. But here we find, so 


734 NOTE XXIII. 


early as the time of Origen, the genuineness of the second and third 
Epistles doubted ; and Eusebius states explicitly (Hist. Ecc. III. 25), 
that the second and third of John were called in question by some; 
τῶν δὲ ἀντιλεγομένων ... ἢ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Lwav- 
vou. Jerome also states (De Viris Illust. c. 9), that these two epistles 
were assigned by some to John a presbyter at Ephesus. 

Besides ; they were left out of the Peshito or old Syriac version : 
which shews that they came into circulation after the Gospel and first 
Epistle had been current in the churches. 

Why Hug should pass in silence all these facts, and thus take no no- 
tice of them, I know not. One thing, however, is plain, viz. that when 
known and fully considered, they must overthrow his theory in regard 
to the second and third epistles of John. ὃ 

As to the doubts themselves which have been raised in ancient or in 
modern times against the genuineness of the second and third epistles 
of John, they are inconsiderable. Even De Wette does not think that 
they amount to any thing serious; and Liicke, Bertholdt, Schott, and 
others, have abundantly rernoved them. ‘The internal evidence is so 
strong, that there is hardly serious room for doubt. In ancient times, it 
would seem that doubts had arisen whether they should be included in 
the canon, rather from the fact that these epistles were directed to pri- 
vate individuals, than from any other circumstance. 


Nore 23. Third Epistle of John. (§ 72. p. 466). 


Here again is the same singular mistake in our author, of supposing 
that John complains of the want of writing materials, and that this is 
good evidence of his being in exile. John says (v. 18), ‘‘ [have much 
to write, but I will not do it with ink and pen.” Why? Not because 
he ceuld not. He does not say οὐ δύναμαι γράψαι, but ov ϑέλω γρα- 
wae. But why would he not! Because he expected soon to see his 
friend, and tell him mouth to mouth the many things he had τὸ say, in- 
stead of writing them. What can be a more natural circumstance in a 
letter than this? 

Then, again, as to the state of exile; John says (v. 15), ἀσπαζονταὶ 
σὲ οἱ φίλοι, the friends salute thee. So then, this lonely exile was sur- 
rounded by his friends. 

Who Gaius (Caius) was, we know not, excepting that he appears to 
have been one of the apostle’s spiritual children, and to have merited 
and enjoyed much of his confidence. ‘That he belonged to Ephesus, and 
that a party there, of which Diotrephes was the head, had rejected 
an epistle written to them by John, v. 9, (i.e. the first epistle of John, 
according to Hug), rests not only upon mere conjecture, but on very 
improbable conjecture. Is there any thing in the other writings of John, 
which favours the predominance of such aparty at Ephesus? Rather, 
does rot Rev. 2: 1 seq. make directly against such a supposition ? 

Much more probable does it seem to me, that when the apostle wrote 


i 


DISCREPANCY OF GENEALOGIES. 736 


his second and third epistles, he was at Ephesus, on the eve of setting 
out upon one of his evangelical journeys among the churches; that 
having some private opportunity to write to Gaius and to Cyria before 
he could visit them, he embraced it. In the course of his journey he 
expected to see them. 

That the two epistles were written at the same time, or under the 
same circumstances, seems probable from a comparison of 2 John vs. 1, 
12 with 3 John vs. 1,13, 14. That Gaius and Cyria both lived in the 
same place, is not certain; that they did not, cannot be proved. 

That 2 John v. 7—11 refers to the same deceivers which are charac- 
terized in the first epistle, 1: 1—3. 4: L—6, seems to be quite plain. 
But that such deceivers were to be found only at Ephesus, and that Cy- 
ria and Gaius must have lived there, as Hug provid seem to maintain,— 
who can vouch for this ? 


Nore 24. Discrepancy in Geneaiogies. (§ 74, p. 469 seq.) 


Hug (p. 469) calls the attempt to trace the descent of Mary in Luke 
an “‘ evasion” of the difficulty in respect to the genealogies, and says that 
“it does violence to the phraseology employed.” What then is the vio- 
lence done in this case? It is simply this, viz., that Joseph, the ac- 
knowledged and actual sor in law of Heli, is counted by the Evangelist 
Luke (3: 23), as a son. But what does Hug himself, in the like way, in 
his own attempt at conciliation? He introduces at least two several ca- 
ses, in which the so-called son of a man, is actually the son of some other 
person. ‘Jechonias,’ he says, ‘had no children.’ And yet Salathiel is reck- 
oned as his son, whose actual father was Neri, and grandfather Melchi, 
according to Luke (3: 27, 28). Again; ‘Salathiel (or Shealtiah) has no 
son ; Pedaiah his brother, therefore, raises up for him a son, whose 
name is Zerubbabel. Yet in the case of Jechonias, even this law of the 
levirate was not fulfilled; for ‘Jechonias had no brothers to raise up 
seed for him,’ p.471. Is this solving the nodus, then, without a “ vio- 
lence” like that complained of in others ? 

But this is not all. Hug has omitted other serious difficulties that 
stand in the way of his theory. In Matthew, the son of Zerubbabel is 
called Abiud; in Luke, Resa; in 1 Chron. 3: 19, 20, seven sons are 
assigned to him, but noone has either of these names. 

Hug notices thatthe name Abiud does not stand in 1 Chron. 3: 19, 
20. He proposes to account for this, by the conjecture that Abiud is 
only a name of affection, i. e. akind of nick- name, by which Meshullam, 
or Hananiah, was called ; like the Arabic Abi or ‘Abu, so often attached 
to proper names. But what isto be done with -ovd in the name ABt- 
οὐδ, he does not tell us. How can we be satisfied with such etymology 
as this? 

It is gratifying to find, that in a note on p. 472, he retracts his singular 
and unfounded criticism on 4799-73372 etc. on Dp. 471. 

After all, however, he has left ‘untouched a difficulty greater than any 


736 NOTE XXIV.“ “ Af 
δ " ne Le 

which he has encountered. How should allthe line from Zorobabel 
* downward in Matthew, be different from that in. Luke, on the supposi- 
tion that Salathiel and Zerubbabel in both Evangelists are the same ? 
Who is the Rhesa of Luke, reckoned by him as the son of Zerubbabel ? 
No such person appears in 1 Chron., nor in Matthew. And even if we 
allow that Abiud in Matthew is a cognomen amoris, and that the real per- 
son is the same as Resa in Luke, yet the same difficulty is to be met 
again in the first link of subsequent descent, and in all the remaining 
ones. The son of Resa was Joanna, and then come Juda, Joseph, 
Semei, etc. In Matthew we have Zorobabel, Abioud, Eliakim, Azur, 
etc. This leaves all the work of Hug to be done over again ; inasmuch 
as we are utterly at a loss, how two lines from Zorobabel (he being the 
same person in Matthew and in Luke), should be wholly discrepant all 
the way down for 500 years, and yet both end in the same person, viz., 
Joseph the husband of Mary. 

Whence did these family genealogies come? From family records, we 
can scarcely doubt. Otherwise, i. e. if the accounts of the Evangelists 
differed from those in the genealogies, the Jews who were unfriendly to 
Christianity would of course appeal to the evident discrepancy as evidence 
that the Gospels were not worthy of credit. Were there wo genealo- 
gies then of Joseph, so entirely discrepant from each other, and yet both 
authentic family records? That seems like an utter improbability, upon 
bare inspection of the nature of this case among the Jews, whose modes 
of counting genealogy were definite and settled. 

Let us look now at another circumstance. In Matthew, the father of 
Joseph is Jacob; then we have Matthan, Eleazer, Eliud, Achim, etc. 
In Luke we have wv, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, vios ᾿Ιωσήφ (Jesus), and then the 
father of Joseph is called Heli, and the other ancestors are Matthat, Le- 
vi, Melchi, Janna, etc. Is it possible now that family records should 
have so computed the genealogy of Joseph as the proper son of Heli, 
etc.? Surely not, in case Matthew is in the right. And did not an 
apostle and early disciple of Jesus, who was personally acquainted with 
all his relatives after the flesh—did he not know what were the authen- 
tic records of Joseph’s descent? Would he make use of any which 
the Jews could gainsay ? 

We come then, in this way, tothe necessary conclusion, that in Luke 
the genealogy of Joseph as the son in law (and probably as adopted son 
also) of Heli is counted; i. e. that the genealogy of Mary is in fact 
reckoned. ‘The very language of Luke seems to indicate something of 
this nature: wv, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσήφ. Jesus was then only the 
supposed or tmagined son of Joseph. When the historian says this, 
would he then go on to reckon a mere imaginary genealogy, or would 
he count it in the line where it really and truly belonged, i. e. in the 
line of his mother ? 

That adopted sons and sons in law might be reckoned in genealogies, 
there can be no good reason to doubt. I can hardly hesitate then to be- 
lieve, that Luke has here in reality reckoned the genealogy of Mary, 
but, in compliance with the Jewish. method, has put her husband at the 
head of the catalogue. If this be not so, then we have no genealogical 
proof exhibited in the New Testament, that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
David according to the flesh, or a real descendant from him. This 


* 


SR ore a . Ὁ “Ὁ ΕΣ 
4 cea e > x 
, ee ee ‘ 
PANO INjOENEALOGIE Se 7... 


|, to say the least, be a 
stres oe Jonge upe 
This whole subject ‘of the g genealogy of Jesus, which has been a stum= 
bling block to so many critics nd ἢ een scoffed at by so many un- 
believers, needs a more thorough investigation than it has yet received, 
and night be made more credible and intelligible than many have hith- 
eri deemed it to be. But the limits of these notes forbid my going any) 
further into it. Commentators can be consulted by the reader ; apie” 

willfind most of them to give him but little satisfaction, =, 

Ud 


8 circumstance, considering how 
Matters) ὑ 


Hug has given us no account in this place of the recent att mpts to 
overthrow the credit of Matthew’s Gospel. David Schulz, in his Christ- 
liche Lehre “vom heilig. Abendmahi, 1824, ina Beilage to this volume 
Orelli, Selecta Capita, ‘etc. 25 A821 | Schulthess, in biblisch-exeget. R 
ertorium by K. and H. Rosenmiiller, Β.ΕΙ. 1594; Wilke in Wine 
Zeitschrift for 1826; and Fischer, in ‘his Einleitung i in die Dogmatik, 
1828 ; have, in various ways, moved doubts of the authenticity of Mat- 
thew’s Gospel. A summary of their grounds the reader will find i in 
Schott’s Isagoge, § 23, pp. 73 seq. More at length he will find the diss = 
cussion of these ‘doubts, and arguments to remove them, by Theile, in. 
Winer and Engelhardt’s Kritisches Journal, B. 11. 1824 ; by Heydens 
reich, in the same Journal, B. III.; also in Bengel’s Archiv. B.Vi.e 
Fritsche’s Comm. in Matt., Proleg. ὁ 21; and in Guericke’s Beitriige, ape 
1828, p. 23 seq. The grounds of doubt are partly such as might be» 
assumed against all the Evangelists, partly of very little moment, and 
partly made up of alleged facts that are mistaken ones. My limits 
not permit me here even to recapitulate them. I cannot for a moment 
suppose, that the general opinion of the churches respecting the Gospel 
of Matthew, will be at all affected by them. 


In respect to the alleged discrepancies between Luke’s account of 
the purification and of the présentation of the child Jesus in the temple 
(2: 22—39), and Matthew’s account of the flight to Egypt and the 
subsequent return of Joseph and his abode at Nazareth (2: 13—23), the 
notes in Newcome’s Harmony may be consulted, which will give more 
satisfaction than Hug’s account of the matter (p. 473). What hinders 
the supposition, that “the visit of the Magi was after the μδ΄ γῶν τ ? 
Luke 2: 39 cannot well be interpreted so “strictly as to leave no space of 
time before the final abode of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth; un 
indeed, we insist on a strictness here of ὡς ἐτέλεσαν, etc. whieh | we are 
obliged to remit elsewhere. The flight to Egypt would ‘occu yy about 
some forty hours’ travelling ; the abode there was probably very short. 
Herod died in the thirty- seventh year of his reign; but-as we cannot be 
certain in what year of this Jesus was borm, so we cannot wi h defi Θ᾽ A 
certainty fix the length of time that was spent by Joseph in Egypt. Atha? 
all events, there is no serious difficulty in respect to this matter. Δ. 


"“ -** εἰ 


—s) a 


738 NOTES KXY. XXVI. Reset - {. 


4 » 
R eal Nore 25. Visit of the Magit to Bethlehem. (p. 474 seq.) 


dam unable to discover, from the tenor of Hug’s δ᾽. whether he 
regards the visit of the Magi, etc., as any thing | more than the ὡς ἢ οἵ 
astrological superstition. Note 3 on p. 474 seems as if he meant to com- 
mend to our notice the pilgrims of his church and their quasi-miracu- 
lous guidance, or else to represent the whole thing as an affair of su- 
perstition ; or at least he would seem to mean, that we should take ad- 
vantage | of these superstitious views in order to illustrate Matt. 2: 1-- 


12. It is somewhat extraordinary, that he should regard the star in 


.- 


_ this case as a real celestial body, and yet undertake to shew that “it 

“stood over the place where the young child was.” It was over that re- 
gion, says he. Indeed? ‘This might have been so. But if it were 
like other fixed stars or planets, it was over a larger portion of the globe, 
than the region of Bethlehem. > 

The facts lying at the basis of this whole matter, seem to me to be 
few and simple. Over all the East, as even Tacitus and Suetonius as- 
sure us, there was an expectation, at the time when Jesus was born, 
that some distinguished and universal king was speedily to arise out of 

Judea. Doubtless the Jews in the East had given occasion to such an 

expectation, and had deduced the notion of it themselves from the Old 
Testament prophecies. The Magi were a class of men devoted to the 
study of science, particularly astronomy and religion. In the case re- 

“lated by Matthew, they might have been Jews or heathen. Daniel 
himself was at the head of the Magi in Babylon; and Jews therefore 
may have belonged to this class of men. 

An extraordinary meteor (ἀστήρ) appeared, and the general interpre- 
tation of astrologers would lead the Magi to suppose, that an extraordi- 
nary king was born. It appeared in the direction of Judea; therefore 
the distinguished king so generally expected, was probably born there. 
They set out to offer homage ; not, as I apprehend, simply from the sug- 
gestions of their own mind, but by ‘the direction of a special Providence. 
It is plain, from v. 9, that on their way the star had ceased to appear. 
When they had set out from Jerusalem for Bethlehem, it reappeared, 
and led the way (προῆγεν αὐτούς), until ‘ it came and stud over where 
the young child was.” To affirm this of ἃ βίαν in the heavens, like 
other fixed stars or planets, would be a most palpable error, which every 
man’s experience would enable him to detect. The appearance, the 
motion, and the direction of this ἀστήρ, are plainly and palpably sup- 
posed by the Evangelist to be eztr aordinary and supernatural. Hug, 
in endeavouring to avoid the admission of this, has suggested consider- 

_ations which will give very little satisfaction to the minds of the doubt- 
ers whom he means to convince, and still less to those who feel no need 
of explains away supernatural phenomena. 


Ys. Nore 26. Genuineness of several passages. (p. 476 seq.) 


T must remit the reader to critical editions of the New Testa- 
ment, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbac —_ Scholz, etc.; also to such 


thy « 7 ᾽ 


Γ 


_ ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 599. 
’ 
commentaries as discuss these matters, e. g. those of Kuinoel, Fritsche, 
Paulus, Olshausen, and others, for a more full account of critical doubts, 
and the solution of them. Schott, in his Isagoge, has given an able 
summary of them. But I cannot accede to all his doubts, nor to all his 
decisions. 


΄' 


Nore 27. Acts of the Apostles. (δ 77 seq. p. 488 seq.) 


I cannot think that the view of Hug (p. 490), in relation to Luke’s 
long abode in Palestine before his union with Paul, is by any means 
well-supported. There is nothing in Luke’s Gospel or in the Acts of 
the Apostles, which he might not have learned from eye and ear wit- 
nesses in Palestine. What was he doing, during the two years that 
Paul was in prison at Cesarea? Acts 24:27. Abundance of time he 
had, and the best of opportunities, to investigate ἄνωϑεν all which he has 
related in his Gospel, or in the first part of the Acts, respecting the oc- 
currences in Palestine. 

When Hug suggests (p. 491), that the particularity of the narrator, 
in the first part of the Acts, is proof of his having been an eye-witness, 
etc., I do not feel the force of this remark. The same writer was an 
eye-witness to many other events, which he relates very summarily. It 
was the importance of the events which took place in Palestine, I ap- 
prehend, which gave birth to Luke’s particularity. Deeply interesting 
it was, to see the beginning of the kingdom of God among the Jews, 
and then its gradual development among the Gentiles. 


That Luke did not design to give a general history of the apostles 
and of their labours, is plain ; as Hug suggests. He follows on in the 
train of important incidents until the conversion of Paul. After this, 
his account of other matters than those which concerned Paul, is mere- 
ly occasional and quite brief. Paul is evidently the great object of his 
story. 

But to assume that the Acts was not published until after the death 
of Paul (§ 81), and the same even of the Gospel also, is assuming more 
than can in any way be established, and more, as I regard the matter, 
than can in any way be rendered probable. Hug supposes, that the reason 
why Luke has not given us any account of Paul’s trial, his defence, his 
final sentence, the issue of it, and what took place during his imprison- 
ment, must be, that Theophilus lived near the scene of action, and was 
acquainted with all that happened there. Of course, as he declares, he 
regards the book of Acts as written only for the private benefit of The- 
oplilus. . 

Strange indeed all this will seem to most readers; at least it seems 
sotome. Theophilus acquainted with all that befel Paul at Rome! 
Why then does Luke relate the occurrences which are describe 


τ 740 : NOTE XXVII. 
ing continually, as opportunity occurred? Did Theophilus, then, who 

as personally acquainted with all which befel the apostle there, need to 
be advertised of this? ‘The supposition is little short of preposterous; 
and not far from this (at least so I must view the subject), is the deduc- 
tion, that Luke wrote his book after the death of Paul. 

The very face of the last part of the narration is against this. Why 
does Luke stop short with the two years of imprisonment? Because one 
would naturally say, the time when he wrote his book permitted him to 
gono further. Surely if Luke wrote for readers who felt a peculiar in- 
terest in the history of Paul, (and who will not assent to this?) then, 
after giving such a detailed account of every thing that befel Paul, from 
‘the time of his first apprehension at Jerusalem until he was brought to 
Rome as a prisoner, he could not have failed to proceed with the ac- 
count of his trial and of the final issue of it. I take it for granted, 
in this remark, that there is no substantial ground for Hug’s theory here, 
either in respect to the mere private design of Luke’s Gospel and book 
of Acts, or in regard to Theophilus’ personal knowledge of matters re- 
specting Paul at Rome. Having taken so much pains to tell his readers, 
then, about the apprehension of Paul, his first trial, appeal, journey to 
Rome, etc., is it within the bounds of any probability, that Luke would 
not have said something of Paul’s final trial and the issue of it, in case he 
wrote the Acts after the death of the apostle? The case seems to me 
so plain, as not to need further effort to illustrate it. 

If this be correct, then the writing of the Gospel of Luke must have 
been still earlier; for at the very commencement of the Acts, Luke re- 
fers to his Gospel, and calls it τὸν πρῶτον λόγον. This would seem, 
therefore, to fix the date of the Gospel at a period antecedent to some 
62 or 64 years after the beginning of the Christian era. 


The characteristics of the book of Acts are not explicitly given by 
Hug. It would seem that Luke used, in the composition of his work, 
some written notices of events and addresses. ‘The preaching of Peter, 
the addresses of Stephen, the various addresses of Paul, James, and 
others, instead of being all conformed to one model, viz. to the model 
of the author’s own style, preserve respectively all the discrepancies and 
distinctions of style and manner which we could have expected origi- 
nally from their authors; and they thus shew, that they have been pre- 
ΜΗ τ related with great care and fidelity. in Xenophon, Thucyd- 
ides, Livy, and other Greek and Roman historians, we find all the vari- 
ous speakers adopting the style of the author himself; which shews that 
all of their speeches were composed by him. But not sointhe Acts of 
the Apostles. 

That Luke had some particular and specific object in view, in writing 
his book, has often been asserted, but never proved. It is plain, indeed, 
that he means to give the early history of Christianity as developed in 
Judea, and to give it somewhat particularly. After the religion of Je- 
sus, however, began to be published among the Gentiles, we have al- 
most nothing from our historian but accounts of the efforts made by 
Paul and his companions for that purpose. A general history of the 
church, therefore, Luke could not have intended. A particular ac- 
count of Paul is no doubt his main design; but not for the sake of some 


EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 741 


specific doctrinal object; unless, indeed, one should say (which he 


might do-with some probability), that the main object of Luke is to 


shew, that the privileges and blessings of Christianity belong as truly to 
the Gentile as to the Jew. 


As to the style ; some of the peculiarities of Luke appear almost every 
where in the book of the Acts, when the narration is hisown. These 
have been often and at great length pointed out. See Schott, Isagoge, 
§ 46, Note 3. 

The genwineness of this book has never been seriously called in ques- 
tion, either in ancient or modern times. The testimony of the ancients 
may be found abundantly in Lardner, Schmidt, and almost all the In- 
troductions. See Schott, § 44, Note 2. De Wette (more suo) has sug- 
gested some doubts and suspicions, in his Einleit. § 114, A brief an- 
swer tothem may be found in Schott, § 44, Note 3. 


The chronology of the book of Acts is ably discussed by Hug. The 
leading recent authors on this subject he has mentioned in a note on p. 
494. All the older writers, Lardner, Pearson (Annales Paulini), and 
many others, who have written the Life of Paul, discuss the same sub- 
ject. Hemsen, in his recent Life of Paul, and others in Introductions, 
Commentaries, etc., have all laboured in some way to cast light upon 
this matter. But still, there are some difficulties in respect to it which 
do not seem to have yet been fully overcome, and there is not sufficient 
ground, therefore, to fix exact dates with great confidence. The main 
difficulty lies in ascertaining the exact point of time, when the Aretas 
mentioned in 2 Cor. 11: 32, was king over Damascus, and the governor 
under him endeavoured to apprehend Paul. As the sway of this Ara- 
bian king over Damascus lasted for some time, to fix exclusively upon 
some definite point in this period is a matter of serious difficulty. But 
there is sucha spirit of chronological inquiry awakened and abroad 
among able and learned men, that we need not despair of yet attaining 
to a better chronology of the events recorded in the New ‘Testament. 


Nore 28, Epistles to the Thessalonians. (§§ 91—95. p. 512 seq.) 


Whoever will be at the pains of comparing the texts referred to by 
Hug in § 92, must become entirely satisfied that Paul wrote the first 


epistle to the Thessalonians very soon after his arrival at Corinth, and ὦ 


therefore in the year 52 or 53. Equally plain is it, that the second epis- 
tle must have,been written not long after the first, from the nature of the 
case which it presents, and the manner of the whole epistle. It appears 
from 2 Thess. 2: 1—3, that some one (probably belonging to the Thessa- 
Jonian community) had forged an epistle in the name of Paul, designed, 


as it would seem, to urge upon the Thessalonians the idea that the day 


of the Lord, mentioned in Paul’s first epistle, was very near at hand. 


* 
4 
Ss ia, 


49 NOTE XXVIII. 


Whether this was done for mere party purposes, i.e. to encourage one 


party and terrify another; or whether fear or wanton conjecture gave 
birth to this supposititious epistle, we are not informed by Paul. Howev- 
er this may be, he did not deem it proper to leave the Corinthians in a 
state of doubt as to what he had written, and what he meant to incul- 
cate by his first epistle. His second epistle therefore was written, in 
order to deliver them from false apprehensions created by the suppositi- 
tious epistle, and also to set them right as to the interpretation of his 
own first letter to them. We may place the writing of the second epis- 
tle, in view of these facts, at Corinth, and at some time during the lat- 
ter part of the year A. D. 53, or in the first part of 54. 

It is truly surprising, that after the explanation here professedly made 
by Paul with respect to his meaning in the first epistle, when he declares 
that ‘“ the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night,” etc., that a 
great number of commentators and critics of the present day, still as- 
sume it as aposition made out, that Paul and all the other apostles and 
primitive Christians expected the judgment-day before the close of the 
then present generation of men. Is Paul then, I may be permitted to 
ask, to be regarded as a proper interpreter of hisown meaning? Can 
the series of events to which he refers in 2 Thess. 11. be well supposed 
to be all accomplished during the generation then extant? Can we sup- 
pose that the day of the Lord was so near as this at hand, when Paul 
declares that all solicitude on this subject, on the part of the Thessalo- 
nians, is groundless? 2 Thess. 2: 1, ὦ. To me it seems, that Paul un- 
dertook to correct the very interpretation of his words, in the first epis- 
tle, which is now every day made by some, not only of this but of kin- 
dred passages every where in the New Testament. 

So has it been, too, with the Apocalypse. ‘This book declares, at the 


commencement and at the end of it, that ‘the Lord will come quickly,’ 


and that “things which must shortly come to pass” (1: 1), were signi- 
fied in vision to the holy seer. Yet this very book designates periods of 
a “time, times, and half a time,” i. 6. 42 months, symbolical of the pe- 
riod of the reign of Antichrist; also a period of 1000 years, symbolical 
of the duration of the Messiah’s kingdom on earth; and then again 
another period of declension and of the prevalence of sin, before the 
end of the world. How now could the writer begin and end his book, 
when all this was in his mind or when he had already written it, with 
the apprehension that all which he predicted was to be accomplished in 
his own life-time, or at farthest during the period of the generation then 
living? This supposition is preposterous in itself. Yet the evidence in 
the New Testament in respect to the speedy coming of the Lord, is no 
where in ashape more urgent and decisive than it seems to be in this 
very book. The simple truth appears to be, that the series of events by 
which the prophecy of the book was to be fulfilled, was to commence 
and did commence very speedily. ‘The book itself, as I apprehend, 
was written just before the invasion of Judea by the Roman power, 
which ended in laying waste the country and destroying the capital ; 
and this I regard as the subject of chap. 1v.—xr. 

ΠῚ possible, however, the language in respect to the speedy coming of 
the Lord seems to be stronger in 1 Thess. v., than even in the Apoca- 
lypse. What says Paul? “The day of the Lord cometh like a thief 


» ἀΐεις * » 
- oe - a 
4 μι * “ ; : 
- 45 ho 
EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 743 


> 


in the night,” i. 8. suddenly and unexpectedly. So the next verse ex- 
~ plains it again, “ Swdden destruction shall come upon them.” But what. 
peculiar interest had the Thessalonians in all this? The apostle seems 
to tell them what interest they ought to take in it: ‘‘ Ye, brethren, are 
_ not in darkness, that the day should overtake 4 you as a thief’ How 
“could Paul have signified more plainly, we are ready at first reading to. 
exclaim, that the Thessalonians were every hour exposed to the sudden 
and unexpected coming of the day of the herd? Yet after all this, it 
appears by the apostle’s second letter to the Thessalonians, that all he 
meant to say, was designed to console and fortify the minds of the 
Thessalonians, and to assure them, that the sudden destruction which 
awaited the wicked was not intended for them, or at least, that they 
need not live in terror respecting it. Comp. 2 Thess. 2:1, 2. It would also 
seem, that what he had said respecting the sudden coming of the Lord 
and consequent destruction of the wicked, was also designed for the en- 
couragement of Christians to persevere in their obedience to Christ. 
But they understood him, or at Jeast the supposititious letter already ad- 
verted to seems to have led them to understand him, as saying, that this 
destruction of the wicked might be expected during the generation 
then living. But even this Paul did not mean ; although his words cer- 
tainly seem to be capable, at first view, of being interpreted in this 
manner. He assures the Thessalonians, in his second epistle, that the 
wicked are not to be destroyed by the coming of the Lord, until Anti- 
christ, or the man of sin, the son of perdition, shall have been fully de- 
veloped. 

Is this man of sin, now, an individual or a series of individuals ; a 
professed but apostate Christian or a heathen? Hashe already appear- 
ed, or ishe yet tocome? Did he begin his development in thetays it 
Paul, and continue it successively down to the present period (like the 
fulfilment of the prediction in the Apocalypse), or is the whole devel- 
opment still to be made? 

These questions cannot be answered here; for a volume of discus- 
sion would be required, in order to establish any one of the opinions 
suggested by them, and refute such as would differ from it. Of course 
it is impossible to enter seriously into the discussion, in a limited note 
like the present. Whoever will be at the pains to compare 1 John 2: 
18—29. 4: 1—6. 2 John vs. 7—10; also Jude vs. 4—20, and 2 Pet. 3: 
3—15; and finally Rev. xi. xiv., will be deeply impressed with the 
conviction, that one and all of the New Testament writers had the ap- 
prehension of a great falling off from the Christian church, and of great 
opposition and enmity to it either on the part of the apostasy, or on the part 
of others, or of both. Difference of light and shade is thrown by each 
writer into his own individual picture ; and probably some have sketch- 
ed one part of it and some another; but that all the writers had parts of 
the same generic idea or representation in their minds, I think will hard- 
ly be questioned by the inquisitive and investigating reader. 

That the prophecy of Paul in 2 Thess. 11. is to be interpreted ina 
less specific and definite manner than has sometimes been done, any one 
who is familiar with the interpretation of the Hebrew prophecies will 
hardly call in question. Hug (p. 515) refers the whole to tdolatry. 
He doubtless knew that many among Protestant expositors have refer- 


aft 


wet 


τ * ᾿ς ( 

_ red it to his own church, i. 6. to the Papal p 
' ginning of the-fulfilment be nearer to the ti 
than t y 


But must not he be- 


*. 


> when the apostle wrote, 
the sixth century and the dark ages that. followed 1 Are the man 
of sin, the beet the false prophet, any thing op or less than symbols 


of enemies a ersecutors of the church, and apostates and deserters 
from it, of every or any age, of every and any condition? Questions, » 
which remain yet to be satisfactorily answered on proper exegetical 
grounds, but which would be well worth the time and pains of some 
able interpreter of the Scriptures. It isto be regretted that some of the” 
most able interpreters have not recently taken up the epistles to the 
Thessalonians, and given them a more extended and radical investiga- 
tion than they have yet received. ‘ 


4 


» Nore 29. Epistle to Titus. (§§ 96 seq. p. 515 seq.) 


Hug, in his anxiety to establish his views as to the time and place of this 
epistle, has omitted most of the circumstances which particularly inter- 
est the critical inquirer. ἢ 

It appears from Gal. 2: 9, that Titus was a Greek by birth. From 
the context here it is also evident, that he was a confidant and a chosen 
companion of Paul. He was also a confidential messenger of the apos- 
tle to the churches ; see 2 Cor. 7: 6, 13, 14. 8: 6, 16,23. 12:18. We 

» «ean have no difficulty, therefore, in giving credit to what is said (Tit. 
» 1: 1—65), in respect to the apostle’s affection for him, or the important 
» charge which he committed to him. _ 

a The declaration in Tit. 1: 5, shews clearly that Paul hadhimself been 
. in Crete and preached the gospel there. But of this we have no ac- 
count in the book of Acts; and therefore the probability as to the time 
when, and the occasion on which, he made this journey, are to be made 
out, if indeed they can be, from the circumstances of some journey re- 

lated in the book of the Acts. 

Paul mentions in his epistle to Titus (3: 12), that he was going to 
winter in Nicopolis. But of the fact that he did so,gLuke has no where 
advertised us in his history of Paul. And, what makes this more diffi- - 
cult still, there were many cities of ihis name; several in Asia Minor, 
one in Epirus, one near mount Haemus in Moesia, one on the Ister or 
Danube in the same province, another near the river Nestur in the 
south-east part of Thrace, and another in Egypt. Which of all these 
was meant by Paul, seems not yet to have been made out with any good 
degree of satisfaction. 

The reader who attempts to trace out and find in the book of Acts, 
all the journeys or transactions of Paul which are designated even in his 
epistles, will surely be disappointed. Nothing can be more certain, 
than that Luke has given us an account of only a moderate portion of 
either the labours, the sufferings, or the journeyings of Paul. For ex- 
ample ; Paul, speaking of his own experience in 2 Cor. 11: 23 566.» 
says: “‘ In labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons 


πὰ πὰ UCU ESC rt ΡΨ Ἢ 


ἷ + 
. San > 


τ 


EPISTLE TO TITUS. 745 


more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty 
stripes save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, 
thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and day have I been in the deep ; 
in journeying often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, etc.” In 
Rom. 15: {9 he tells us that he had travelled even to Ldlyricum, and 
preached the Gospel there; which region comprehends the modern 
Croatia and Dalmatia, on the eastern shore of the gulf of Venice. From 
these and many other notices of the same kind in Paul’s epistles, it is 
altogether evident, that we are not to look for a full and complete ac- 
count of his labours and travels in the book of Acts. 

Accordingly we have no where an account of his sailing to Crete, ex- 
cepting that when he was carried to Rome, the vessel in which he was 
embarked landed for a short time at Phenice, a harbor on the west- 
northwest part of the island, Acts 27: 12. There is not even a remote 
probability that Paul at this time went on shore and preached. Differ- 
ent writers have therefore made out by conjecture, the occasion on 
which, or the voyage during which, he first touched at Crete and 
preached the Gospel. 

Hug (§ 96) supposes Paul to have sailed by Crete, when he left Co- 
rinth (after his first abode there of 18 months), and sailed from Cen- 
chrea (Acts 18: 18), the eastern port of Corinth, which opened into the 
Sinus Saronicus or Grecian Bay. But the reader may easily see how 
improbable this is, by tracing the way over the Grecian sea from Cen- 
chrea to Ephesus, where the apostle landed, Acts 18: 19. It would at 
least have ¢trebled his distance, to have gone round by Crete. Nor is 
this all. Not a word in the history of this voyage intimates any storm, 
any deflection of the ship from the regular course, any stop or landing, 
or any apostolical labours in preaching. 

Others think that Paul made a voyage to Crete, during his 18 months’ 
abode at Corinth, when he first went to that city, Acts, 18:11. So Mi- 
chaelis, Einleit. 11. 1315. 

Others, again, suppose the apostle to have gone there during his sec- 
end visit of three months at Corinth (Acts 20: 3); e. g. Heinrichs in 
Comm., Lardner, Lightfoot, and others. 

Others suppose that Paul went thither during his second visit to Eph- 
esus, where ne abode some three years, Acts 20: 31. So Schmid, 
Binleit. I. 265. 

Bohl, in his Ueber die Zeit der Abfassung und d. Paulin. Character 
der Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 1829, has fully discussed all these 
suppositions, and shewn at least that none of them have any very invi- 
ting claim upon our belief. Still, asthe argument against the claims of 
some of these suppositions must be founded principally or merely on the 
sience of Luke in his history ; and as we know that he did pass in si- 
lence many important events of Paul’s life; one can hardly feel himself 
to be satisfied with objections simply of this nature. 

On account of the difficulties, however, which attend the respective 
suppositions above mentioned, many critics of name have been led to 
suppose, that Paul’s visit to Crete was /ater than any of which we have 
a written narrative, and therefore that it took place after his liberation 
from his first imprisonment at Rome, and before his second. So Mill, 
Le Clerc, Bertholdt, Mynster, Guerike, Heydenreich, and Bohl. It 

94 


746 NOTE XXIX. 


would seem that this is the attitude which most of the recent critics are 
inclined to take. But as the second imprisoment. of Paul at Rome is 
loudly called in question, of late, by some intelligent critics, we are met 
here again with occasion of doubt and difficulty. 

_ More recent than any of the writings above named, is the solid, learn- 
ed, and truly excellent work of Hemsen, late Professor at Gottingen, 
and University-Preacher there, entitled Leben Pauli, i. e. Life of Paul, 
published in part after the author’s death, by F. Liicke, Professor at the 
same University, who has furnished it with a Preface, which does equal 
honour to himself and Hemsen. ‘The work is not, as might be suppos- 
ed from merely reading the title, one of biography simply: it is design- 
ed to be, and is, a critical introduction to the epistles of Paul, as well 
as a historical account of his labours. Asa general historical and crit- 
ical introduction to the reading of his epistles, it is the best with which 
I have any acqnaintance. ‘The author is always grave, serious, disin- 
clined to extravagant and conceited theories; and withal, a supernatur- 
alist and of evangelical sentiments. In most cases, I can agree some- 
what readily with his critical results. But as he here adopts the same 
views with Hug; and as the whole basis of this theory must be laid in 
the assutoption, first that Paul in journeying from Corinth to Ephesus 
(Acts 18: 18, 19), went round by the way of Crete, and secondly that at 
Ephesus he met with Apollos soon after this, and helped to instruct him 
in the Christian faith, and before his first departure from that place 
(Acts 18: 21) wrote to Titus a letter in commendation of Apollos 
(Tit. 3: 13),—as all this must be assumed (for surely it cannot be prov- 
ed), it appears to my mind to be too large a demand in this way. In- 
deed the second particular seems to be evidently against the tenor of the 
history in Acts 18; 24—28. If Paul had actually seen and instructed 
Apollos, it is easy to perceive how much more it would have been to the 
purpose of the historian, whose aim was to commend this eloquent dis- 
ciple, to give the reader some hint of it. But as he has not done this, 
it is too much now to ask, in this case, that we should assume it. 

But I must refer the reader to the temperate and able discussion of 
Hemsen, pp. 193 seq., where he will find much ingenuity and great fair- 
ness in debate; but still, the difficulties stated above, as to the main po- 
sitions, are not satisfactorily removed. 

So much can be said with certainty ; viz. that there was abundance of 
time during Paul’s second visit to Ephesus and his three years abode 
there, to make one or more missionary excursions to Crete. See Acts 
xix. and 20: 31. That he did not do this, is not proved by the silence 
of Luke; that he did it, can not be fully shewn, for it depends. only 
on conjecture which is not improbable. 

‘he argument of Hug (on p. 516 seq.), in order to shew that Paul 
landed at Crete during his voyage from Cenchrea to Ephesus, after his 
first visit to Corinth (Acts 18: 18, 19), we have seen to be apparently 
destitute of probability by reason of the circumstances of that voyage. 
Nor is the author more fortunate, in my apprehension, in making out 
the probability from the facts in relation to Apollos. Let the reader 
carefully peruse Acts 18: 18—2S8 and 19:1, and he must naturally 
come, as it seems to me, to the conclusion that Apollos did not reach 
Ephesus until after the first departure of Paul from it, Acts 18:21. On 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. “41 


Paul’s second coming to Ephesus (Acts 19: 1), Apollos was already 
gone to Corinth. From thence he might have gone to Crete, after 
Paul had himself been there and laid the foundations of a Christian 
church. At Ephesus Paul would of course have a full account of the 
character and Jabours of Apollos; and in like manner he could obtain 
the same from his beloved Christian friends at Corinth; and in case 
the apostle wrote to Titus at Crete, while he was himself at Ephesus, or 
afterwards, he might, if Apollos was there, say what he does in Tit. 3: 
17 in a perfectly natural way. Clearly there is nothing improbable in 
all this. 

Still, it all amounts to no more than a possibility, against which there 
seems to be no very formidable objections. But the supposition of Hug 
appears to me to be encompassed with great historical improbabilities. 


The genuineness of the three pastoral epistles of Paul, was denied in 
ancient times by the Marcionites and the followers of Basilides, a 
Gnostic. Recently the apostolic origin of the first epistle to Timothy 
has been called in question by Schleiermacher, in his Kritsches Send- 
schreiben tiber den ersten Brief an den Timotheus ; and the genuine- 
ness of ail three was stoutly impugned by Eichhorn, in his Einleitung. 
The first named antagonist found an opponent in H. Planck, Bemer- 
kungen tiber den Brief an den Timotheus, etc., 1808. Besides this au- 
thor, Wegscheider in his Comm. ; Bertholdt, Einleit. VI.; Bengel, Ar- 
chiv. B. I. St. 1; Beckhaus, Specimen Observatt. etc. de formulis in 
prima epistola ad Tim. ; Heydenreich, Die Pastoralbriefe Pauli, 1826 ; 
Guerike, Beitrage, etc., 1828; and G. Bohl, Ueber die Zeit der Abfas- 
sung, etc., der Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 1829; have all discussed 
the subject of the genuineness of the pastoral letters of Paul. A very 
able and lucid summary of the principal points.in the controversy, is 
given by Schott in his Isagoge, § 72 seq. ΤῸ him, or to some of the 
authors above named, specially Planck, Bohl, and Hemsen, I must, for 
want of room here, refer the reader. I will only add, that the genuine- 
ness of these epistles, so unanimously conceded by all the churches 
catholic of antiquity, has not, in my apprehension, been rendered doubt- 
ful by any of the attacks that have been made upon them. 

If the supposition of Hug is not correct, with regard to the time when 
the epistle to Titus was written, it follows of course that the chronologi- 
cal order which he has given it in his Introduction is not to be regarded 
asthe true one. Yet Hemsen, as we have seen, defends the position of 
Hug. But the argument can never be made convincing. 


Nore 30. Epistle to the Galatians. (δ 99. p. 519 seq.) 


Hug seems to take it for granted, that Paul had made a second visit to 
the Galatians, before he wrote his epistle to them. Ido not see that 
this can be deduced, as he supposes, from the Janguage employed by 
the apostle in Gal. 4: 13, εὐαγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον ; for πρότε-- 


748 NOTE XXX. 


θοὸν means only a time antecedent to that in which he wrote, or (as we 
say in English) formerly or in time past. Paul then could express him- 
self in this manner, whether he had made one or two visits to Galatia 
before he wrote his epistle. 

On the other hand, when the apostle (in 1:6), expresses his wonder 
that ‘ the Galatians had begun to depart from their primitive faith οὕτω 
ταχέως, so soon,’ the most natural interpretation of this is, to refer it to 
time and not construe it as meaning sine more, i. e. festinanter, prae- 
postere, etc., as Schott proposes to do, Isagoge, § 53, Note 4. 

To construe δι᾿ ἀσϑένειαν τῆς σαρχὸς εὐαγγελισάμηὴν as relating to 
the apostle’s condescension to Jewish prejudices when he first preached 
among them, is evidently overlooking the sense which the context puts 
upon these w ords for the apostle proceeds to say: ‘* Ye did not despise 
τὸν πειρασμὸν μου τὸν ἐν τῇ σαρχΐ μου, > thus. plainly shewing that it 
was some physical debility or hindrance which he had suffered, while 
labouring at first among the Galatians. 

As to the fact, whether Paul actually wrote the epistle to the Gala- 
tians after his second visit to them, this has been assumed and defended 
by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Winer, De Wette, and others, as well as by 
Hug. Such may, indeed, have been the case; and perhaps, consider- 
ing the time naturally requisite for the changes that the Galatian 
churches had undergone in their sentiments, we may deem this to be 
the more probable supposition. 


The disputes about the chronology exhibited in the contents of the 
epistle to the Galatians, which mentions Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (1: 18. 
2: 1), have been often repeated, and do not seem yet to be terminated. 
The reader may obtain hints which will enable him to understand the 
subject in dispute, by first of all acquiring a definite view of Paul’s re- 
spective journeys to Jerusalem; which, as recorded in the Acts, he 
will find, 

(1) In Acts 9: 26—28, (comp. Gal. 1: 18, 10.) 

(2) In Acts If: 97. 80; which seems to have been a journey for mere 
eleemosynary purposes, and probably took place, as the famine in the 
time of Claudius enables us to determine, in A. D. 44 or 45. This fam- 
ine began in A. D. 44, toward the close of the fourth year of the reign 
of Claudius, Joseph. Antiq. XX.5.2. Kuinoel, Comm. on Acts IL: 
28, and particularly his Proleg. p. XXV. Allowing now some time for 
the pressure of the famine, before it was severely felt, we may place this 
eleemosynary journey of Paul near the close of A. D. 44, or in the be- 
ginning of A. D. 45. 

(3) The third journey of Paul to Jerusalem was made by him asa 
delegate from the churches at Antioch to Jerusalem, in order to obtain 
the views of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem in regard to the neces- 
sity of circumcising Gentile converts; Acts 15: 1—30. 

The question mainly disputed in regard to these matters is, how the 
fourteen years mentioned in Gal. 2: 1 are to be counted. Those who 
reckon πάλον here as meaning the second journey of Paul to Jerusalem, 
i.e. his eleemosynary one (as stated above), are obliged, of course, to 
adopt a different reading of the Greek text, and instead of διὰ dexa- 
τεσσάρων ἐτῶν, to read διὲ τεσσάρων ἐτῶν, 1. 6. after four years (in- 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. |. 749 


stead of fourteen). So Capell, Grotius, Heinrichs, Bertholdt, and others. 
See Kuinoel in Proleg. ut supra. So also Schott thinks the text should 
be read. But here again the advocates of this reading are divided as to 
the method of making out the four years. (a) Some count it from and 
after the time when Paul made his first journey to Jerusalem ; so that it 
would be seven years, or in the eighth year, after his conversion, when 
he made the eleemosynary journey ; which may be made to tally with 
his conversion in A. D. 36 or 37. (6) Others date his conversion in 
A. D. 40, and then reckon the four years from that time, and not from 
the time of the first journey to Jerusalem. See Kuinoel ut supra, and 
the authors cited by him. 

Differing widely from these, other writers, and of late nearly all the 
distinguished critics, suppose that the journey of Paul mentioned in 
Gal. 2:1, dva δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν, must have been the one named un- 
der No.3 above. So Irenaeus in ancient times, Adv. Haeret. III. 13. 
$3; so Pearson in his Annales Paulini, Semler in his Paraph. in Gal. ; 
Koppe, Comm. in Gal. ; Vogel, Commentatio, etc., in Gabler’s Journal. 
Β.1. St.2.  Haselaar, de Nonnullis Actorum etc. 1806; C. Schmidt, 
Chronol. der Apostelgeschichte, in Keil and Tzschirner’s Analecten, 
B. ILL. St. 1; Winer, in Excursus ad Comm. in Gal.; and Hemsen in 
Leben Pauli. The two last have treated this matter in a way more per- 
spicuous and satisfactory than even Hug has done, in § 82 seq. of his 
work. To them I must refer the reader for the detail of the various 
considerations which belong to the subject. 

Some of those who have advocated the views mentioned in the para- 
graph which precedes the last, are Keil in his Opuscula; Eichhorn, 
Einleit. B. I1f.; Siiskind, Neue Versuch iiber Chronologie, etc., in 
Bengel’s Archiv, I.; Gabler, Neues theol. Journal, XIJII.; Kiichler, 
de Anno quo Paulus ete. 1828; Flatt, Comm. iiber die Galater; Kui- 
noel, Comm. in Act., Proleg. 

I will add here, for the sake of furnishing the student with more ma- 
terials of investigation, a brief statement in regard to the chronology of 
the third journey of Paul, i. e. the one made to attend the council at 
Jerusalem, as related in Acts xv. 

Hug places this in A. Ὁ. 53 (p. 503). This would make the 14 years 
mentioned in Gal. 2: 1, tobe dated from and after Paul’s first Journey 
to Jerusalem in A. D. 39, as computed by Hug. ‘The reader should be 
advertised, that the confidence with which he speaks on this subject is 
not altogether well grounded. He assumes, in order to make out his 
argument, that the martyrdom of James, the imprisonment of Peter, 
and the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts xu.), all happened while Paul 
and Barnabas were at Jerusalem, during their eleemosynary mission, 
Acts 11:30. The time of the death of Agrippa is an important cir- 
cumstance ; for after his death, his son being a minor and unfit to conduct 
the affairs of government, the Roman emperor sent Cuspius Fadus as 
Procurator, and wnder him the famine commenced which was predicted by 
Agabus, Acts 9:28. It seems plainly to have been the pressure occa- 
sioned by this, which sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem on their 
eleemosynary errand. 

Hug then, taking it for granted that the death of Agrippa happened 
while they were there, seems to feel that here is a definite stand-point ; 


750 NOTE XXX. 


for we know from Josephus (Antiq. XX. 5. 2), that Agrippa died after 
the third year of Claudius was completed, i. 6. after January of A. D. 
44, for Claudius ascended the throne in January of A.D. 41. Our au- 
thor also represents Paul and Barnabas as going upto Jerusalem on 
their errand of charity, at the time when Peter was apprehended by 
Herod Agrippa. Yet the death of Agrippa did not follow until some 
time after this, viz. when he had gone to Cesarea. Hug states, on p. 
495, that the famine followed after the decease of Agrippa (which we 
know from history to be true as stated above); and yet, in the para- 
graph next preceding, he represents Paul and Barnabas as having come 
to Jerusalem before the feast when Peter was apprehended by Herod, 
and of course before Herod’s death, and therefore before the famine had 
begun to exist. Of course he must construe Acts 11:29, 30, as refer- 
ring to a charity-mission which preceded the famine ; for which opinion, 
as I understand the text, no good reason can be given. 

The whole basis of Hug’s argument here seems to me to be assump- 
tion merely. How can we argue that there is an exact synchronism be- 
tween the arrival, or at least the stay, of Paul and Barnabas at Jerusa- 
Jem, and the events of James’ death and Peter’s apprehension and He- 
rod’s consequent death? All that the writer says to guide us is this: κατ᾽ 
ἐχεῖνον δὲ καιρὸν x. τ. A, i.e. about that time, near that time. So far 
as this expression is concerned, it may indeed have been at the very 
time when the messengers from Antioch were at Jerusalem ; or it may 
have been a little afterwards, or alittle before. Kaze before a designa- 
tion of time, is used in various senses; 6. g. Matt. 27: 15, κατὰ τὴν 
ἑορτήν, αἱ the feast, during the feast ; Heb. 1: 10, κατ᾽ aoyas, olim, in 
days of yore; κατὰ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν τἱμέραν, to morrow, on the coming 
day, Jos. Antiq. VI. 5.3. We are not limited, by the language of the 
historian, to the supposition that the events related in Acts x1. are 
strictly synchronistic with the visit of the messenger there from Anti- 
och. Consequently the circumstances of the case are to guide us. But 
these appear to be conclusive against Hug’s view. The messengers 
from Antioch come up to Jerusalem, in order to relieve (at least this seems 
to me to be the plain sense of the passage) the pressure of Christians 
there from a famine, which did not take place until some months after 
Herod’s death ; and yet our author brings them to Jerusalem before the 
death of Herod, and consequently before the famine had commenced. 
It appears to me, indeed, quite plain, that James’ martyrdom, Peter’s 
imprisonment, and Herod’s death, had all taken place before Paul and 
Barnabas went on their eleemosynary errand, because no special occa- 
sion for such anerrand existed, so far as we have any knowledge, until 
after Herod’s death. This leaves us, then, to find the time of this er- 
rand only through the medium of the, time when the famine happened, 
excepting that the κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον καιρὸν of Acts 12: 1 advertises us, that 
the time of the visit could not have been far from the time of the other 
events just mentioned. But when we examine again into the history of 
the famine, in Jos. Antiq. XX. 5. 2, we find that it lasted from A. Ὁ. 44 
(latter part) to some time in A. D. 46, i.e. some two or more years. 
How soon, or how late, during these years, did the church at Antioch 
send to the relief of their brethren at Jerusalem? This is a point which 
we have no means of deciding. Probable conjecture is all that we can 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 751 


offer ; although the impression of the inexperienced reader, on perusing 
Hug (p. 494 seq.), would probably be quite different from this. 

Another important point assumed by Hug as certain, or nearly so, is 
still attended with not a little difficulty. Irefer to the period when Paul 
went, for the third time, to Jerusalem, to attend a council of the apos- 
tles and elders; which Hug places in A. D. 53. This can hardly be 
made out with probability ; certainly not with any good degree of assu- 
rance. In Acts 18: 1, 2, long after the journey of Paul to attend the 
council at Jerusalem, we have the statement that the apostle met with 
Aquila and Priscilla, ‘ who had lately come from Italy, because of the 
decree of Claudius, which excluded the Jews from Rome.’ Now, al- 
though it cannot be shewn with entire certainty in what year of Claudi- 
us’ reign this took place, yet it seems to be quite probable, that it was 
during the twelfth year, i. e. some time in A. D. 52. See Suetonius, Vita 
Claudii, c. 15. Tacit. Annal. 12. 52; see also Schott’s Isagoge, § 48. 
Note 15, and the essays cited there. A considerable period must have 
been occupied by Paul, in making his journeys and performing his la- 
bours, as related in Acts xvi. xvit. What have we then, to guide us as 
to the time when the council at Jerusalem was held? Nothing definite. 
Schott proposes (as some others have done, and as the Chronicon Alex- 
andrinum does), to read Gal. 2: 1 thus: dca τεσσάρων ἐτῶν ; and he 
supposes Paul’s conversion to have happened in A. D. 40 or 41; then 
counting dhree years to his first journey to Jerusalem, and four years to 
the time when Paul went up to attend the council, he makes it of course 
to be held in A. D. 47o0r 48. But here again critics are divided, and no 
firm ground has yet been won, on which we can stand with entire con- 
fidence. If we suppose that Paul was converted in A. D 36, and then 
(with Pearson) count the 14 years of Gal. 2: 1 from the time of his con- 
version, we should of course have A. D. 50 for the time of the council 
and of the journey which the apostle mentions in Acts xv. This would 
accord well with the tenor of the history in Acts 18: 1, 2, as it would 
leave some two years for the events in Acts xvi. xvi. It appears by 
these two chapters, that Paul had traversed most parts of Asia Minor, 
and of the sea coast of eastern upper Greece, before he came to Co- 
rinth and found Aquila and Priscilla there. This was probably in A. 
D. 52. But we can only conjecture, after all, as to the actual time of 
the conncil at Jerusalem. Thus much, it would seem, must be true, if 
the reading δεκατεσσάρων in Gal 2: 1 is retained, viz., that it was either 
14 years after Paul’s conversion, or 14 yearsafter his first visit to Jerusa- 
lem, which was three years subsequent to his conversion. Yet even 
here we have not attained to all that we desire, as to the precise chro- 
nology. His conversion is placed in A. D. 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, etc., 
with great confidence by different writers. On the whole, then, the 
student need not expect any thing more than some tolerable degree of 
satisfaction as to probability in any of these cases; at least in the pres- 
ent stage of discussion. When critics speak about these matters with 
confidence, and as though certain and precise dates were absolutely 
made out, the reader must attribute this merely to the strength of the 
writer’s conviction, and not to the facts which the case allows us, as 
yet, to consider as well established. 


752 NOTE XXXI. XXXII. 


To return for a moment to the ¢ime when the epistle to the Galatians 
was itself written; I deem it not improbable that it was written not . 
long after Paul’s second visit to Ephesus (Acts 19: 1), where he staid 
three years (Acts 20:21). His first visit is recorded in Acts 16: 6, when 
the Galatian church was founded. This second visit was to confirm, 
i. e. strengthen, encourage, render stable, the church there and in 
Phrygia, Acts 18: 23. Soon after his second visit Paul came to Ephe- 
sus, and staid there three years, Acts 19: 1. Now as’ nothing is hinted 
of the defection of the Galatians, when Paul made his second visit to 
them, but the same thing is said of Paul (ἐπεστηρίζων) both in respect 
to the churches of Phrygia and Galatia, it is very natural to conclude, 
that after his second visit there was a speedy and unexpected change 
among the Galatian churches, so that the οὕτω ταχέως of Gal. 1: 6, is 
altogether intelligible and apposite. Paul at Ephesus, the capital of 
Asia Minor, had good opportunity to learn the state of the Galatians, and 
leisure to write to them. Most probably, then, he did write here, and 
not long after his arrival, as οὕτω ταχέως would seem to indicate. 


Nore 31. First Epistle to the Corinthians. (δ 102 seq. p. 512 seq.) 


The time and place of this epistle are so definitely given, that scarce- 
ly any doubt can remain on the mind of the reader. 1 Cor. 16: 8 shews 
us that the place was Ephesus ; and 1 Cor. 16: 5 shews that it was writ- 
ten near the time of Paul’s departure for Macedonia, as related in Acts 
20: 1; 2. 


Nore 32. Second Epistle to the Corinthians. (§ 106 seq. p. 530 seq.) 


There can be no doubt, when any one reads attentively the second 
epistle to the Corinthians, that it must have been written but a few 
months after the first, and written during the apostle’s journey through | 
Macedonia. It was somewhere in Macedonia, on this journey, that Ti- 
tus met him with the tidings from Corinth, 2 Cor. 8: 5,6; and the 
same Titus was sent back to Corinth with the second epistle, 2 Cor. 8: 
11—18, 23. 9: 3—5. Whether Philippi was the place of writing it, or 
some other town, cannot be ascertained. See Hemsen, p. 312. 

Efforts have been made to divide this epistle into several, which were 
supposed to be written at different times. SoSemler in his Paraphrasis, 
and Weber in his Programma de numero Epist. ad Cor., etc. 1798. The 
reader may find the discussion in Schott’s Isag., § 57. The whole mat- 
ter is so purely arbitrary, as hardly to merit a discussion. 


es =» 


FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 753 


Norte 33. First Epistle to Timothy. (§ 109 seq. p. 534 seq.) 


What Hug has said in defence of his views here, is certainly ingeni- 
ous, and on the whole seems to me more probable than any other suppo- 
sition, in regard to the time when this epistle was written. ‘Theodoret, 
Benson, Zachariae, Michaelis, Hanlein, C. Schmidt, Koppe, H. Planck, 
A. Curtius in his Comm. de Tempore quo prior ep. ad Tim. etc. 1828, 
and others, are substantially of the same opinion with Hug. Hemsen 
has'‘decided in the same way, and has given us a most able discussion 
of the subject ; Leben Pauli, pp. 349 seq. 

The difficulty which lies in the way seems to be, that in 2 Cor. 1: 1, 
(written after Paul left Ephesus and during his journeyings in Macedo- 
nia), the apostle joins Timothy with himself in the salutation ; who, 
therefore, must have been present with him. But Hug has shewn that 
there is no very serious difficulty here ; certainly nothing which is insu- 
perable. The considerations, moreover, which are suggested in the 
epistle in relation to the appointmeni of bishops and deacons, and the 
various proposed arrangements of ecclesiastical matters, naturally point 
us to an early state of the Ephesian church. Schott (Isag. § 73, Note 
3) suggests, that the mention of false teachers, the command that a 
teacher should not be a novice, and other circumstances of the like na- 
ture, shew that the Ephesian church could not have been recently estab- 
lished. But I do not feel the force of this argument. Paul had been 
preaching at Ephesus some ¢hree years before he left the place, and then 
he went away atthe close of a great tumult. While he was there su- 
perintending the concerns of the churches in person, they were not in any 
special need of other pastors; but when he left the place, it was natu- 
ral for him to wish that teachers and elders should be appointed, who 
now could no longer be considered as γέσᾳ υτοί, provided they had been 
among the early converts. 

Bertholdt supposes that Timothy had. been sent to Ephesus by Paul, 
during his three months stay in Greece, 1. e. in Corinth, after his journey 
from Ephesus through Macedonia, Acts 20: 1—3; and that the apostle 
wrote to him at Corinth, or at least on his return from Corinth to Asia. 
Berth. Einleit. VII. 3571. But Acts 20: 4 is decisive against this, inas- - 
much as Timothy was still with Paul on his return from Corinth to Asia 
Minor. 

Finally, Usher, Pearson, Mill, Le Clere, Wegscheider, Paley, Hey- 
denreich, Guerike, and Bohl, decide in favour of a time which is pos- 
terior to the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome. Schott inclines to 
the same opinion, Isag. p. 298. Note7; where the reader may find a 
summary of the reasons in favour of this view of the subject. I 
readily concede that there are some things in this view which in 
themselves seem not to be improbable. Indeed one is almost ready 
to hesitate between this view and the one given by Hug; but, on the 
whole, I am rather inclined to the latter; and the more so, because 
Hemsen (Leben Pauli, pp. 340--384) seems to have substantially an- 
swered the arguments adduced by the writers above named in favour of 
the late composition of this epistle. To him I refer the reader; who 

95 


754 NOTES XXXIV. XXXV. 


will find in him a summary of all which is of any importance that has 
been advanced in relation to the topic before us, and a considerate esti- 
mation of its critical value. 


Nore 34. Epistle to the Romans. (δ 114 seq. p. 541 seq.) 


I must refer the reader here for all which I could say in regard to the 
critical history of this epistle, to the introduction to my Commentary " 
upon it. Of course the ¢ime in which it was written is differently da- 
ted, according to different views of chronology in respect to the life and 
actions of Paul. Hug places the writing of it in the fifth year of Ne- 
ro, i. 6. A. D. 59 or 69, (Nero’s reign began in A. D. 54); Schott sup- 
poses it to be the latter part of A. D. 56 or the beginning of A. D. 57; 
while Hemsen places it in A. D. 60, and so Eichhorn, Tholuck, De 
Wette, and the majority of later critics. 

Whoever wishes to see an ample and able discussion of all the criti- 
cal doubts and difficulties that have been raised concerning this epistle, 
may consult Hemsen (ut supra) pp. 3894—-422. In particular, what is 
said about the order of the doxology in Rom. 16: 25—27; the order 
and genuineness of chap. xv. xvi., which have in various ways been 
assailed ; is most amply and very ably discussed by Hemsen, in pp. 450 
—466. In regard to the difficulties now in question I have given a brief 
account in the commentary before named, and summarily discussed 
them. The reader would not be aware, from reading Hug only, that 
any of the difficulties in question had ever been raised. The theory of 
Schott in regard to chap. xv. xvt., in his Isagoge § 59, Note 3, (of which 
I have given an account in my work above named), is a most singulane 
conceit of a very learned, and for the most part solid, sober, and judi- 
cious writer. Scldom will any author be met with, who has included 
more or as much valuable instruction in the same compass, as this author 
has donein hisIsagoge. It is the more to be wondered at, therefore, that 
he should have fallen upon such a singular conceit about the last chap- 
ters of the epistle to the Romans. 


Nore 35. Epistle to the Ephesians. (δ 120 seq. p. 548 seq.) 


Hug has stated, for substance, all the evidence from ancient times, 
that the so-called epistle to the Ephesians had not originally a specific 
direction given to it; at least that it was not directed principally or ex- 
clusively tothe Ephesians. 'The conjecture of Usher, that it was an 
encyclical epistle, designed not only for Ephesus but tor the churches in 
its neighborhood, has been more generally received than any other ex- 
planation of the difficulties respecting its original destination. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 755 


Hemsen (pp. 602 seq.), after adducing the facts which Hug has sta- 
ted in regard to the testimony of Basil and Jerome, and also the opin- 
ion of Marcion, comes to the conclusion, that Paul originally had sever- 
al copies of the epistle made out, in one of which he wrote ἐν Zgow 
in verse 1, in another ἐν Auodexeia, and in others still (which were de- 
signed for other churches where T'ychicus the bearer of the epistle 
might go and carry a copy) he wrote τοῖς ovoey—and left a vacant 
space after it, so that Tychicus might fill it up as occasion would re- 
quire. In this way, he supposes, we may account for the readings in 
Ephesus, in Laodicea, and also for Codices which omit both. All are 
but various ways of reading, which are equally correct and original. 

I cannot well rest in such a conclusion; although, indeed, it is sub- 
stantially that of Hug, p. 551. Other encyclical epistles, 6. g. 1 Pet. 
2 Pet., James, leave no vacant space in the inscription to be filled up. 
Nor does it seem very probable that Paul would have sent his letter 
abroad in this condition. Did he not know to what churches he meant 
to send it? Was it likely that a prisoner at Rome urged every day 
with the great business of building up a church in the metropolis of the 
Roman empire, would attend to the multiplication of the copies of this 
epistle, when he could have this done indefinitely by a request to the 
church or churches to which it wasto be sent? All this seems to me 
to be too improbable to be readily believed. 

How then shall the omission of év’ Eqéow be explained, in the copies 
of which Basil speaks and to which he makes an appeal? A question 
which it may be difficult to answer; and yet one that does not establish 
the position which it is designed to establish. ι 

Several things may be taken into consideration here, in the way of 
preparation for some answer to this question. It is a common remark, 
that there is almost nothing of allusion in this epistle to any personal 
connection of the writer with those whom he addresses. He does not 
here speak, as he does in the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, ‘Thes- 
salonians, etc., of intimate connection with them, of his state of mind 
towards them, of theirs towards him; of false teachers or false doctrines 
among them, which he foretold would come in upon them, when he part- 
ed with the elders of this church at Miletus, Acts 20: 17 seq. Inasmuch 
as Paul had spent almost three years at Ephesus, we should expect to 
find every where in his letter, it issaid, an overflowing of heart, a pa- 
ternal tenderness and affection, which would characterize this above all 
of his epistles. But instead of this, we find him speaking in a very 
cool and distant manner: ‘‘ After I had heard of your faith in the Lord 
Jesus and love to all the saints” (1: 15); just as if he knew nothing of 
this matter except by hearsay. Then again, in 3: 2, 3, he says: “If 
ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given 
me to you ward, how that by revelation he made known unto me the 
the mystery, as I wrote afore in a few words.” And then in v.4 he goes 
on to say, that ‘in case they have read thatletter they may understand: 
his knowledge of the mystery of Christ.’ Again, in 4: 20, 21, he 
speaks of the Ephesians as not having learned Christ in a carnal man- 
ner, ‘‘ if indeed they had heard and been taught in respect to him, as the 
truth was in Jesus.” How is it possible, now, it is asked, to suppose 
that the apostle could speak in this manner to a church, which he had 


‘ 


756 NOTE XXXY. 


founded in person, and to which he preached about the space of three 
years ? . 

Such is the sum of the argument against the alleged direction of the 
epistle before us to the Ephesian church. Most of its force, however, 
depends on a single particle, viz. εἴγε, which seems to be wrongly under- 
stood by many, and erroneously translated in our English version. ‘This 
particle, although a conditional one, yet does notseem, by N. Test. usage, 
to imply doubt or uncertainty in respect to the conditional sentiment 
which it precedes. E. g. 2 Cor. 5:3, εἴγε καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι, “ since in 
case we are [thus] clothed, we shall not be found naked, etc.” Gal. 3: 
4, ‘“‘ Have ye suffered so much in vain? eye καὶ εἰχῆ, since it is indeed 
in vain,” i. 6. it isso, in case ye have apostatized, as is reported. In Col. 
1: 23, we have εἴγε ἐπιμένετε x. τ. 4, i.e. “incase ye shall continue 
rooted and grounded in the faith.’ ‘That they would persevere, the 
apostle did not doubt, and did not mean to express a doubt. 

These are all the cases of εἴγε in the New Testament excepting the 
two before us, in Eph. 3: 2 and 4: 11. In the first of these, the senti- 
ment appears to be the following: “Since ye know the dispensation of 
the grace of God which is given me εἰς ὑμᾶς, that he revealed to me 
the mystery ; (as I before wrote you briefly, which when you read, you 
can consider (νοῆσαι) my acquaintance with the mystery of Christ).” 
Now there is one circumstance here, which seems to me to overthrow 
the whole design for which this passage is quoted, in order to show that 
Paul could not have directed this epistle to the Ephesians. It is the εἰς 
ὑμᾶς which he throws into it. What can this mean, but that the mys- 
tery of the gospel entrusted to him, had been specially developed by 
himto them. If you say: ‘This was by the former letter which he here 
mentions’ ; my answer is, that he only adverts to that as a summary (ἐν 
odiyw) of what he had preached, and the use to be made of it is, to 
supply them with an aid to reftection or consideration in regard to what 
he had preached. What could be more natural? ‘The apostle had 
been now absent from them some six or seven years. Can we suppose 
that he had never written tothen? He tells us plainly here that he 
had; and thatin that writing he had exhibited a summary of the mys- 
tery of the gospel, the dispensation of which had been committed to 
him εἰς ὑμᾶς on their account. We find no evidence here then of 
strangeness and distance on the part of the writer, but first a dispensing 
of the grace of the gospel to them, and secondly of a familiar and 
frieridly ¢pistle to them before the one which the author is now writing. 

The second ¢¢ye is still less in favour of those, who appeal to it for 
the purpose already named. What says the apostle? ‘‘ But you have 
not so learned Christ; since (εἴγε) ye have heard him [i. e. Christian 
doctrine], and been taught by him (or in respect to him, ἐν αὐτῷ), as 
the truth is in Jesus ;” Eph. 4: 20,21. Here the assertion of the apos- 
tle is absolute, that the Ephesians have not erroneously learned Christ ; 
and this, says he, must be so, since they had heard and been taught as 
the truth is in Jesus. 

These supposed conditionalities, then, make no good ground of argu- 
ment for those whom I am now opposing. Nor does the ἀκούσας of 
1: 15 serve any better purpose. Why should we understand this of the 
apostle’s merely and originally learning something of the faith and love 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 757 


of the Ephesian church by hearsay? Had he not been absent from 
them some siz years when he wrote the epistle before us?’ How could 
he know whether they persevered in their faith and love, except by 
hearsay? And what could be more natural than for him to inquire so- 
licitously respecting their condition 1 

These alleged internal evidences, then, that Paul could not have writ- 
ten this epistle to the Ephesians, seem to melt away before closer scru- 
tiny. Let us see, now, what there is of a different tenor, in this epistle. 

The reader must open his New Testament and read for himself atten- 
tively Eph. 1: t—14. 2: 1—10, 3: 1, 13—21. He is desired specially 
to note 3: 13, “ my tribulation for you, which is your glory.” 4: 1—8, 
17—24. 6: 10—24. Are strangers merely addressed here? I ac- 
knowledge that there is less circumstantiality here, than in the epistles 
to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, and to some other churches. But 
there is an obvious reason for this. Those epistles were written shortly 
after the apostle had been with the respective churches; and nothing 
was more natural in such a case than circumstantiality. But here, an 
absence of some siz years had made quite a difference in respect to this. 
Many were dead whom the apostle personally knew; and others had 
been joined to the church to whom he was personally unknown. 

Taking all this into consideration, in connection with the unanimous 
testimony of all the Mss. now extant, and all the ancient versions, there 
can scarcely be room for much doubt, that ἐν Δ φέσῳ in chapter 1: 1 is 
genuine, and that it stands properly there. How can we prescribe for 
Paul, the particular manner in which he should address any church to 
which he writes, and then make our preconceived notions on this sub- 
ject, the measure of our critical judgment? 

The reader should not fail to notice the remarkable similarity which ‘ 
exists between the tenor of this epistle and that to the Colossians. Let 
him compare, for example, 


(a) Eph. 1: 4—12, 19—23 Col. 1: 13—20, 24 seq. 
2: 14—22. 3: 6, 9—12. 4: 15 seq. 2: 9—15. 

(5) 2: 1—12. 1: 21 seq. 

(c) 4: 22 seq. 3: 9, 10. 

(e) δ: 21—33. 6: 1—9. 3: 18—25. 4: 1. 

(d) 5: 18 seq. _ 3: 16 seq 

(f) 4: 29. 4: 5, 6. 

(g) 6: 18 seq. 4: 2 seq. 

(h) 6: 21 seq. 4: 7 seq. 


These are only a small part of the whole resemblances. A simi- 
lar junction of sentences and the like phraseology may be found in 
abundance. I refer the reader, for the tabular exhibition of this, to De 
Weitte’s Einleit. ins N. Test. ὃ 146; also toa brief but well digested 
summary of the whole, in Schott’s Isagoge, ὃ 62, Notes 4—13. One 
can hardly refrain from coming to the conclusion, that both epistles 
must have been written near the same time, and while the writer’s mind 
was substantially in the same attitude. - 


758 NOTE XXXVI. 


. Norr 36. Epistle to the Colossians. (§ 122 seq. p. 552 seq.) 


The introduction to this epistle by Hug, seems at first to be meagre. 
The difficult and interesting questions concerning it he does not discuss 
here. But the reader will find more respecting some of them in § 131. 

It is singular, that he, Hemsen, Bahr, and others, should appeal to 
Eckhel (Doctrina Nummorum, ILI. p. 147), as confirming the orthog- 
raphy Kodoooa/, instead of Kolaocoai; while Schott and De Wette 
make the same appeal, in order to prove that the /atter is the true or- 
thography. Critical editors are divided on the question which is the 
best orthography. In the mean time, as the Roman and Greek writers 
employ the O in the name (and not the A), this would seem to settle the 
question which is preferable. 

Hug assumes the fact (p. 553), that Paul had not taught in person at 
Colosse. I cannot either assume it, or (on the whole) even think it to 
be very probable. In Acts 16: 6 we have an account of Paul’s travers- 
ing the country of Phrygia, in which was Colosse and Laodicea, near 
together, and both at a moderate distance from Ephesus. Again in 
Acis 18: 23 is another narration of the same kind. It isindeed no where 
actually specified, that Paul visited Colosse or Laodicea. But I do not 
understand Col. 2: 1, as deciding against the supposition that Paul had 
been at Colosse; as many do. ‘Theodoret of old gave it as his opin- 
ion, that “ those who had not seen the face” of the apostle, were others 
not included among the Christians of Colosse and Laodicea. So Lard- 
ner, Schott, Hemsen, and others; while De Wette, Bahr, and others, 
side with Hug. I cannot think it probable, that Paul, during his three 
years’ stay at Ephesus, would not have visited Colosse and Laodicea, 
which were so nearly within his neighborhood. Be that as it may, how- 
ever, the apostle speaks in a tone of such affectionate confidence to the 
Colossians, as almost of necessity imports some personal acquaintance ; 
unless indeed he had told us expressly to the contrary, which he las 
not. 

That Epaphras, however, had been the principal instrument in buil- 
ding up the Colossian church, is plainly indicated by Col. 1: 7. 4: 
12, 13. 

The principal occasion of the epistle to the Colossians, seems to have 
been the rise of certain heretical teachers and fanatics among them, 
as described in chap. 11. Who and what these were, has been a ques- 
tion which has given rise to much discussion and a great variety of 
opinion. Different critics have found in them Gnostics, Essenes, pre- 
cursors of Montanism, disciples of John the Baptist, Jewish Cabbalists, 
and Judaizing Christians; and some a sect compounded of several of 
these. ‘That the sect in question were professed Christians, but still 
heretical ones, would seem to be implied by 2: 19, ov χρατῶν τὴν χεφ- 
αλήν x.t.4. The apostle’s description of them is brief and graphic. 
They were men, who, pretending to be philosophers, taught “ vain de- 
ceit, the traditions of men, the rudiments of the world,” and not true 
Christian doctrine. They were men who had over much zeal about 
“meats and drinks, holidays, new-moons, and [Jewish] sabbaths’ (2: 

16); they were devoted to a kind of “‘ angel-worship,” and pretended 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 759 


to a ‘secret knowledge of the invisible world (ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύ- 
wy, 2: 18); they made much of mere external ordinances, which had 
respect only to the perishing objects of sense ; they made a great shew 
of humility, of rigid abstinences, of macerating the body, etc.; yet 
still they were vainly puffed up with overweening conceit respecting 
their own superior virtue and intelligence ; Col. 2: 20—23, comp. v. 18. 
Such is the brief but animated description, which the apostle has given 
of the heresy that disturbed the peace and threatened the purity of the 
church at Colosse. 

Two circumstances attending the exhibition of this subject serve to 
shew, that many of the conjectures respecting the sect to which these 
false teachers belonged, are not well grounded. It is plain, in the first 
place, when we attentively examine Col. 2: 18—23, that the errorists in 
question pretended to be Christians as has already been remarked ; and 
in the second place, that the church at Colosse were in danger of being 
influenced by them, on account of their unusual pretences or claims to 
humility, self-denial, and especially to a deep and recondite knowledge 
of invisible and supernatural things; ἃ μὴ éwoaxev ἐμβατεύων, v. 18. 
Now all this could not belong to disciples of John the Baptist, to Gnos- 
tics, Jewish Cabbalists, or Essenes, simply as such. Jt mightindeed be 
true, that some professed Christians had something of a Gnostic faith, 
or of Cabbalistic fancy, or were inclined to the ascetics of the Essenes; 
but so far as any part of this seemed to savour of these respective sects, 
it would rather diminish than enhance their credit among the Colossian 
Christians in general ; and of course diminish the danger to which the 
church was exposed by reason of them. 

The sect in question, (if sect they must be named), would rather ap- 
pear to have been one who maintained doctrines compounded of the ori- 
ental emanation-philosophy and some of the speculative part of Platonism, 
a kind of theosophico-ascetic philosophy. The emanation-philosophy 
taught the derivation of many orders of beings of different rank, first 
from the great Supreme, and then in succession from each other. To 
become capable of union with these, ascetic practices and abstraction 
to all possible extent from every thing material and sensual, was deemed 
necessary. A philosophy of this kind had not only reached Asia Mi- 
nor, but penetrated even to Rome, before the time of Augustus; see 
Hemsen, pp. 203 seq. 642 seq. Much of this philosophy some of the 
professed converts to Christianity might have still retained ; and it would 
seem from the epistle to Titus, Timothy, and to the Colossians, that they 
did retain it. Hence the dignity of Christ and his high exaltation over all 
these αἰῶνες (Aeons) are so strenuously inculcated in the epistle before 
us. This seems to be the most natural and easy solution of the difficul- 
ties that have been raised as to the contents of this epistle. The reader 
will find a very able and learned statement of this subject, in the sequel 
of Hug, viz. in δῇ 131—133. 


As to the dispute respecting the epistle to ihe Laodiceans (§ 127), 
Hug is clearly in the right, as it seems to me, when he comes to the 
conclusion, that the epistle to the Colossians was not occasioned by one 
from the Laodiceans to Paul, as some argue from (Col. 4: 16); nor was 
the epistle directed to the Colossians an answer to that Laodicean epis- 


760 NOTE XXXVII. 


tle. But the conclusion of Hug and Hemsen that the epistle to the La- 
odiceans was our present canonical epistle to the Ephesians, seems not to 
be equally well grounded. Their main reason is, that we cannot account 
for the loss of the epistle to the Laodiceans; and we must therefore sup- 
pose that it has been preserved, and consequently that we have it in the 
present epistle to the Ephesians. But how shall we account for the 
loss of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5:92 Or for the 
loss of his first epistle to the Ephesians, 3: 81 Or of an epistle by 
John, 3 John v.9% And so, perhaps, of still more. Why should we 
plunge into greater difficulties in order to avoid less ones? It is easier 
to suppose the epistle to the Laodiceans to have been lost, than it is to 
account for it that Paul calls the epistle tothe Ephesians by that name 
in Col. 4: 16. 


Lastly, the dime and place of writing the epistle to the Colossians 
have recently been called in question. The Coptic version gives Ath- 
ens as the place of writing it; Erasmus conjectured that Ephesus was 
the place. But both are contradicted by Col. 4: 3, 18, which shews 
that the writer was in bonds. Oeceder conjectured that it was written 
during some imprisonment previous to that at Rome; and Paulus, dur- 
ing Paul’s imprisonment at Cesarea. But the circumstances of the 
case, the society of Demas, Tychicus, Onesimus, etc., at Rome, advert- 
ed to in Col. 4: 7 seq., point very clearly to the Romish imprisonment, 
and not to that of Cesarea, where none of these persons seem to have 
been. 

The recent works on this epistle, or containing critical discussions 
respecting it, are Boehmer, Isagoge in epist. ad Coloss. 1829. Bahr, 
Comm. in Col. 1833. Hemsen, Leben Pauli, 1830. Ὁ. Schulz, in Stu- 
dien und Kritiken, II. p. 535 seq. F. Junker, Histor. Crit. und Philol. 
Comm. iiber die Coloss. 1828. Schneckenburger, in Anhange zur Pros- 
elytentaufe. 


Norte 97. Epistle to Philemon. (§ 127. p. 555). 


Hug has said nothing of the place where probably was the residence 
of Philemon. It appears from Col. 4: 9, that Onesimus belonged to 
Colosse. It would seem, therefore, of course, that his master also lived 
there; and Theodoret says, that in his time the house of Philemon was 
standing there, Comm. in Philem. 

It has been a question, where Onesimus was converted to the Chris- 
tian faith. Some have maintained that it was at Colosse; others, at 
[Ephesus ; others, at Rome. Nothing certain can be made out respect- 
ing this point. But Philem. v. 19 appears to me plainly to intimate, 
that Philemon himself had been converted under the preaching or in- 
struction of Paul; and this would seem to increase the probability that 
Paul had himself been at Colosse. 


SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 761 


That the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and also to Phile- 
mon, were written about the same time, and sent away by the same 
messenger, viz. T'ychicus, appears from comparing Eph. 6: 21, 22 and 
Col. 4: 7,9. As Onesimus was in company with him, he would there- 
fore most naturally carry the letter addressed to his master. 


Nore 98. Second Epistle to Timothy. (§ 128 seq. p. 556 seq.) 


The circumstance on which Hug, De Wette, and others seem to re- 
ly, in order to prove that the second epistle to Timothy was written before 
the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, and af¢er that 
to the Ephesians, viz. that Timothy was not joined with the apostle in 
his salutation prefixed to the latter epistle, and therefore was not come 
’ to Rome when 2 Tim. was written (4: 9), while he is mentioned in the 
salutation of all the other epistles written during Paul’s imprisonment, 
does not seem to me to be a conclusive argument. ‘Timothy was an ac- 
credited messenger and friend of Paul, who was continually making 
visits to different churches, agreeably to the directions of the apostle. 
The circumstance of his being present or absent, therefore, as developed 
in any particular epistle of Paul written during his imprisonment for 
two years and upwards, can never fully decide any thing as to the par- 
ticular order in which the epistles were written. 

The question whether the second epistle to Timothy was written dur- 
ing the first or a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, is one that has 
been long and vigorously contested, and is not yet brought to a close. 
Baronius, Witsius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Zachariae, Schmidt, Hug, 
Hemsen, and others, contend for the first; while Mosheim, Michae- 
lis, Bertholdt, Mynster, Heydenreich, Guerike, Bohl, Usher, Benson, 
Mill, Le Clerc, Paley, and others, contend for the second. 

Hug (p. 556) has produced some striking examples of the presence or 
society of several individuals with Paul when he wrote the second epistle 
to Timothy, who were with him in his first imprisonment; so striking 
that they seem, at first view, almost to forbid the idea, that there could 
have been another time, i. e. a second imprisonment, when all these cir- 
cumstances would have so concurred. . 

But he has not given a full view (in ᾧ 129) of the difficulties that lie 
in the way of his supposition. Nor has he removed in a satisfactory 
manner those which he has mentioned. EE. g. he says that the declara- 
tion of Paul, that Erastus stayed (ἔμεινε) in Corinth (where he belong- 
ed, see Rom. 16:23), does not import that the apostle /eft him there, 
but only that he had not come to Rome where he was expected. But 
this phraseology (ἔμεινε) would be so singular and unnatural to express 
such a sentiment, that it cannot be so interpreted without doing violence 
to the usual principles of language. 

Then again: “ Trophimus ἀπέλεπον at Miletus sick.’””, Who left him 
there? They, says Hug; and he appeals to the form of the verb, whieh 
may be either the first person singular, or the third person plural. But who 

96 


762 NOTE XXXVIII. 


are they? Hug does not tell us, excepting that he suggests the custom 
of the churches in sending messengers to aid those churches, and spe- 
cially those apostles, who were suffering from persecution. But as 
nothing is suggested in the context which would supply us with a sub- 
ject of the verb in the third person plural, so we are led naturally and 
of course to construe amédemov in the first person singular, and conse- 
quently to apply it to Paul. But when could Paul have gone to Miletus ? 
Certainly not when he sailed from Cesarea to Rome as a prisoner ; for 
the course taken by the ship in which he was embarked, leads of ne- 
cessity to this conclusion. The only time which the history of Paul 
mentions his being at Miletus, was during his last journey from Greece 
to Jerusalem (Acts 20: 15 seq.) which was some five years before he 
wrote his second epistle to Timothy, even according to the chronology 
of Hug and Hemsen. How could it be to Paul’s purpose, when he ur- 
ges Timothy to come to him immediately because other helpers failed, 
to say that some five years or more before this, he had left one helper at 
Corinth, and another at Miletus? ‘The only natural supposition in this 
case is, that Paul, not long before his arrival at Rome, had parted with 
both of these friends ; and of course this must import that there had 
been another circuit made by him in the performance of his evangelical 
labours, of which the book of Acts gives us no account, and which 
must have been after his first imprisonment. It could not have been 
during his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem; for it appears by Acts 
21: 29, that Trophimus was with Paul at Jerusalem. 

With this agrees 2 Tim. 4:13. ‘ Bring my cloak left at Troas, and the 
books, and the parchments.’ Hadall these then been there for the space 
of more than five years, and Paul had not needed or not remembered 
them? Did he want for opportunity to send for them, when he was two 
years at Cesarea? ΤῸ suppose a mandate of this kind, after solong an 
. intervening period, is at least highly improbable. 

Other historical difficulties exist. In 2 Tim. 4: 12, Tychicus is men- 
tioned as being sent away by Paul to Ephesus; in Col. 4: 7, 8, he is 
spoken of as about to be sent with the letter to the Colossians to carry 
which he would of course land at Ephesus. Yet Hug places the 2 Tim. 
before the epistle to the Colossians. 

Again; in 2.Tim. 4: 10, Demas is mentioned as having forsaken 
Paul, through love of the world; in Col. 4: 14 Demas is mentioned as 
_ being present with Paul, and joining with Luke in salutations to the 

Colossians ; all in opposition to the views of Hug. 

Once more ; the civil process against Paul appears to be far advanced 
(2 Tim. 4: 16), and he has no expectation of escape from death (2 
Tim. 4: 6); whereas during his first imprisonment, he expresses the 
joyful and confident expectation that he shall be liberated, and soon be 
with the church at Philippi, Phil. 1: 24—26. 2: 24; and again in Philem. 
v. 22, he directs his friend to prepare lodgings, which might be ready 
against the visit which Paul intended to make to Colosse. 

There are other minute circumstances of difficulty. In Rom. 16: 3, 
Paul, writing at Corinth just before his journey from there to Jerusalem 
when he was apprehended, mentions Priscilla and Aquila as being at 
Corinth ; while in 2 Tim.*4: 19 Timothy is directed to salute them at 
Ephesus. In 2 Tim. 4: 10, only Luke and Mark are mentioned togeth- 


EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS AND HEBREWS. 763 


er as being with Paul; while in Acts 27: 2, Aristarchus is mentioned as 
a companion of Paul on his journey to Rome, and again he is mention- 
ed as being with Paul at Rome in Col. 4: 10 and in Philem. v. 24, in 
both which cases Mark and Luke also are mentioned. 

On the whole, therefore, it seems to me much easier to suppose the 
presence with Paul of the persons mentioned by Hug, on p. 556, du- 
ring a second captivity, than to dispose of the difficulties which have 
been mentioned. Add to all this that Eusebius, Chrysostom, 'Theodo- 
ret, and others of the ancients, gave full credit to the Jiberation of Paul 
from his first imprisonment. There is, moreover, a passage in Clemens 
Romanus, who must have known the fact whether Paul was liberated 
or not, which implies that he went into Spain, i. e. to the pillars of Her- 
cules. His words are: δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ 
τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλϑὼν κ. τ. λ. Ep. ad Cor.c.5. To construe τὸ 
τέρμα τῆς δύσεως οἵ Ilyricum, as mentioned in Rom. 15:19, as Hem- 
sen does (p. 710), seems to be doing violence to the plain and obvious 
meaning of the expression of Clemens. 

If these suggestions are well grounded, then has Hug given an erro- 
neous place to the epistle to Timothy. At all. events it would seem ne- 
cessary to put it after the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and 
Philemon ; as the suggestions above will serve to shew. 

The literature in regard to this subject, may be found in Bertholdt, 
Heydenreich, Guerike, Bohl, Schott, and specially in Hemsen, in their 
works already often cited. Schott has given a very judicious and well 
composed summary of the whole. ΄ 


Nore 39. Epistle to the Philippians. (§ 138 seq. p. 577 seq.) 


Oeder supposes this epistle to have been written during the apostle’s 
troubles at Corinth; which needs no refutation. Paulus conjectures 
that it must have been written during Paul’s imprisonment at Cesarea. 
Rheinwald in his Comm. iiber die Philipper, Heinrichs in his Comm., 
and Mynster in his Kleine theol. Schriften, have sufficiently refuted this. 

Heinrichs and some others have made the conjecture, that our pres- 
ent epistle to the Philippians consists of two different epistles; the first 
of 1.—11. 1 and 4: 21—23; and the second of the rest of the epistle. 
Schott has sufficiently answered the arguments adduced in. favour of 
this conjecture ; Isagoge, § 70, Note 2. 


Nore 40. Epistle to the Hebrews. (δ 141 seq. p. 578 seq.) 


As I have written so fully on the much controverted subject of the au- 
thorship of this epistle, in the introduction to my commentary upon it, 
it would be mere repetition for me to insert any thing more in this place 
respecting the subject. The current has for some time past been set- 
ting strong in Germany, against the Pauline origin of this epistle. The 


764 NOTE XL. 


late work of Bleek upon it has helped to deepen and render more rapid 
this current. Yet 1 cannot help the feeling, that it would not be diffi- 
cult to prove almost any thing from antiquity, if one may take the lib- 
erties in logic which Bleek takes. The internal arguments, on which he 
so much relies, can be made equally strong in regard to Paul’s pastoral 
epistles ; and, so far as ἅπαξ λεγόμενα are concerned, or peculiarities 
in choice or use of words and phrases, equally strong in regard to al- 
most any other of his epistles. When will it be understood “that Paul 
was no tame and lifeless repeater of the same words and phrases, no 
plagiarist, no mere imitator, not even of himself? When this is well 
understood, much less reliance will be placed on arguments of this 
nature. 

As to the proper historical evidence, it seems to me to be plainly, and 
(I had almost said) immeasurably, on the side of the Pauline origin, 
during the early period of the church. Where in all the Greek church- 
es is even a solitary voice against such an origin ? 

If Eusebius in one place reckons it among the ἀντιλεγόμενον, it 
plainly seems to be only in reference to the doubts which had been 
raised by some in the occidental region of the church. He says, that 
there are FOURTEEN epistles, which are manifestly and certainly Paul's, 
τοῦ δὲ Παύλου προόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς ai δεκατέσσαρες, Hist. Ecc. Il. 
3. Of course we must include the epistle to the Hebrews in order to 
make out the number fourteen. 

Nothing can shew the general state of the opinion in the East rela- 
tive to this matter, down to the time of Eusebius, more definitely and 
certainly than this testimony. Every one who has read this writer 
knows, that he is very candid and careful as to the mentioning of differ- 
ent opinions respecting such matters, when he has any knowledge that 
they exist. 

But while the current has of late been setting so strongly in the main 
against the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, some vigor- 
ous efforts have been called forth on the other side. Storr, in his Comm. 
iiber die Hebraer ; Meyer, in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal II. 
B. 3 St.; De Groot, Disputatio qua Ep. ad Heb. cum Paulinis epistolis 
comparatur, 1826; Steudel, in Bengel’s Archiv IV. B.; and some oth- 
ers, have defended the Pauline origin. But Schulz, Seyffarth, De 
Wette, Bleek, Schott, and almost all the late critical writers, have either 
actually opposed this sentiment, or shewn that they did’ not admit the cor- 
rectness of it. 

Recently Olshausen has published an Essay in his Latin Opuscula, 
which deserves very attentive perusal. He admits, on the whole, that 
the Pauline origin is to be doubted, or rather, that we cannot well de- 
cide in favour of it. But the object of his essay is, to shew what an 
unfair estimate has been put upon the arguments adduced to establish 
the antipauline theory, and how much more has been assumed than can 
be made out by proof. I can only express my wonder, that this was not 
long ago seen by him and by many others. Whatever may be the fact 
in regard to the real author of this epistle, nothing can be more certain 
in my mind, than that the great majority of the arguments employed to. 
establish the antipauline theory, are entirely destitute of any real force. 
Indeed I scarcely know of any one subject in criticism, which has 


EPISTLE TO JAMES. 765 


seemed to meto have been more abused. I would hope that the sober 
and candid appeal of Olshausen may do something to arrest the current 
of opinion in relation to this matter, so far as this has been influenced 
by considerations which will not bear the test of well-grounded  histori- 
cal criticism. 

In truth it seems more and more evident to me, that the historical 
doubts raised respecting this epistle, would never have gained much 
ground in recent times, had they not been aided and influenced very 
much by the tone and manner of the epistle. And yet. this is a sub- 
ject about which we cannot be very certain, so long as there are so ma- 
ny evident and confessed resemblances of thought, expression, and 
style in it, to the other epistles of Paul. Schleiermacher and Eichhorn 
have urged the same objections against the Pauline origin of the epis- 
tles to Timothy and Titus; and with apparently as good reason. Yet 
these objections have not been generally deemed to be of any consider- 
able weight. 

Dr. Bloomfield, in the second edition of his Comm. on the New Tes- 
tament, has acceded only in part to the views of those who deny the au- 
thorship of Paul. He supposes that some intimate friend of Paul, ac- 
quainted with his sentiments and style, wrote it, and that Paul then 
gave it hissanction. In this way, he thinks, that both opinions may be 
harmonized, and the epistle at the same time preserved. This opinion 
was for substance advanced by Origen. The thoughts, he said, were 
those of the apostle; the words or diction might belong to Luke or 
some other person. Yet Origen speaks of the epistle as Paul’s in a mul- 
titude of places; and indeed his views did not forbid him so to do, nor 
was it even an inconsistency in him. 

That the thing supposed by Dr. Bloomfield may possibly have taken 
place, I surely would not deny. That we have definite and satisfactory 
evidence of it, I must doubt. While I acknowledge very freely, that 
there is, in many respects, an apparent discrepancy between the style of 
this epistle and that of Paul’s acknowledged epistles, yet I doubt wheth- 
er this can be made to appear as being any greater, than exists between 
Paul’s pastoral and his other epistles. 

The reader will find a summary of the antipauline arguments, in the 
Isagoge of Schott, and in the Einleit. of De Wette. 


Nore 41. Epistle of James. (δ 155 seq. p. 611 seq.) 


The remarks made upon the local circumstances of the writer, in 
§ 155, are striking, yet obvious; but they shew only that he lived in 
a country where the circumstances mentioned actually existed. It does 
not follow from any necessity of the case, that this country was Pales- 
tine; for the same circumstances existed elsewhere. Still, the general 
tenor of the epistle would speak in favour of its being written from Pal- 
estine. From what other quarter was a writer so likely to be heard 
with deference by all Jewish Christians, as from this? Or where else 


766 NOTE ΧΙ. 


’ could he seem to stand in so influential a relation to ‘‘ the twelve tribes 
scattered abroad ? 


On the subject of § 158 it may be remarked, that there is scarcely 
any certainty to be attained in relation to this disputed point. The first 
James, i.e. the brother of John and son of Zebedee, is admitted by 
nearly all to be out of question, on account of his early death; Acts 
xu. The subject of dispute is, whether James the son of Alpheus, son 
of Mary the sister of Jesus’ mother, isthe author of the epistle ; or 
whether it is a James, a real brother by the mother’s side, or brother in 
law, to Jesus, i. e. a son of Joseph by another marriage. 

The difficulty i is occasioned by the indefinite use of the word ἀδελ- 
gos in Hebrew-Greek, andthe word nx in Hebrew ; inasmuch as either 
of these words may mean brother in the strict sense, and also cousin, i. e. 
anear male relative. The brethren of Jesus are mentioned in Matt. 
13: 55 and Mark 6: 3, by the Jews who undertake to apologize for their 
unbelief; and again they are mentioned in Acts 1: 14 and 1 Cor. 9: 5. 
In Acts 1: 14 and in Matt. 12: 46, 47, the mention of them stands im- 
mediately connected with the mention of Mary, the mother of Jesus, 
and seems plainly to import that they belong to her family. In Gal. 1: 
19, James the Lord’s brother is mentioned by name. 

It is objected to the HAs that the James mentioned as an aposile 
(not the son of Zebedee), Matt. 10: 3. Mark 3: 18. Luke 6: 15. Acts 
1: 13, was in thestrict sense the brother of our Lord, (1) That he is 
there reckoned as the son of Alpheus. (2) That the brethren of Je- 
sus did not believe on him; John 7: 5. (3) That the brethren of Je- 
sus, who however appear at a later period to have become believers, are 
still distinguished from the apostles, Acts 1: 14. (4) That an appella- 
tive, ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου (Gal. 1: 19), would not be in place, nor agree-: 
able to common usage, if it meant no more than a cousin; and there- 
fore, that the cases in which this appellation is given, must be distin- 
guished from those in which James the son of Alpheus is mentioned, 
and another person be meant. 

In accordance with this view, Grotius, Hammond, R. Simon, Herder, 
Niemeyer, Zachariae, Tholuck, Fritsche, De Wette, and others, sup- 
pose the James mentioned in Gal. 1: 19. 2: 9, and who appears to have 
had a high standing, yea a leading influence at Jerusalem (Acts 12: 17. 
15: 13. 21: 18), was not an apostle, in the appropriate sense of this 
word, but in a strict sense the brother of Jesus. 

On the other hand, many others, indeed the majority, hold that James 
the son of Alpheus and James the brother of the Lord, are one and the 
same person. So Calov, Buddaeus, Wolfius, Pritius, Carpzov, Semler, 
Rosenmiiller, Pott, Storr, Augusti, Winer, Gabler, Haenlein, Eichhorn, 
Bertholdt, Hug, Schott, and many others. These appeal to the latitude 
of the word brother in Hebrew, in vindication of their opinion. 

It appears from Josephus (Antiq. XX. 9.1), that after the death of 
Festus, James, an ἀδελφὸς κυρίου was murdered by procurement of the 
then high- -priest, Ananus; see Hug, ὃ 164. De Wette, ὃ 163, Note d. 
This must have been about A. D. 64. The James who was the proper 
brother of our Lord, or the James the son of Alpheus who was his 
cousin, might either of them, so far as respects any thing that we know 


EPISTLE TO JAMES. 767 


respecting the length of time in which they lived, have been the author 
of the epistle before us. 

The general feeling has, as we have seen, set strongly in favour of re- 
garding | the apostle the son of Alpheus, as the author of this epistle or 
exhortation. But a proper brother of Jesus, who stood in such credit 
among all Christians, as we have seen above, might write an epistle of 
good authority ; ; why not, as well as Mark or Luke could write a Gos- 
pel? ‘The question is not very important, in my apprehension, to which 
of the two individuals the epistle belongs, to whom it has, by different 
writers, been attributed. Past experience would hardly encourage us 
to expect, that this question will be definitely settled. 


The reader will perceive, that the early testimony respecting the 
epistle of James, which is deduced from the most ancient fathers, is 
comparatively meagre. ‘Two passages in Athenagoras, an early father, 
deserve notice, although the reference to James in them may not be al- 
together certain: viz. ως γὰρ 0 γεωργὸς καταβάλλων εἰς γὴν τὰ σπέρ-- 
ματα, ἄμητον περιμένει οὐκ ἐπισπείρων κα. τ. A, comp. James 5: 7. 
Athenag. Leg. pro Christ. p. 37. So the following : οὐ yao μελέτη ho- 
yo, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπδείξει καὶ διδασκαλείᾳ ἔργων τὰ ἡμέτερα, comp. James 
9: 19. 

It would be useless to appeal to testimonies in the fourth century ; as 
they may be found in every quarter, and no doubt remains of its general 
reception at this period. 

In the mean time, the remark of De Wette, who is uncommonly 
watchful for every matter of doubt, on the expression of Origen quoted 
in Note 3, p. 623, viz. wo ἐντῇ φερομένῃ ]ακώβου, seems to have 
no good foundation. De Wette appeals to the word φερομένη, as de- 
signating a doubt in the mind of Origen, whether this epistle in reality 
belongs to James, inasmuch as he seems to say, that it is only reported 
(φερομένη) to be his. But this word is not by any means used among 
the Christian fathers, so as necessarily to convey merely such an idea. 
Eusebius, in Hist. Ecc. III. 25, employs the same word in speaking of 
the first epistle of John, which, however, he expressly reckons among the 
ὁμολογούμενα or uncontradicted writings of the New Testament. 

One obvious reason may be suggested, why the epistle of James is no 
more frequently quoted by the ancients; this is, that it is made up most- 
ly of mere hortatory and practical matter. Another reason, perhaps, 
had some influence, viz. that it seems to contradict some of the positions 
which Paul had taken in regard to the matter of justification by faith. 

For this latter reason, perhaps, Erasmus entertained doubts respect- 
ing its authenticity ; Annott.in Jac. Atany rate, Luther, in his Preface 
to this epistle, assigns this reason, and stoutly maintains that it is well 
grounded: ‘‘ Sie stracks wider St. Paulum und alle andere Schrift den 
Werken die Gerechtigkeit gibt,” i. 6. ‘ it ascribes justification to works, 
directly contrary to St. Paul and all other Scripture.’ So in his Pre- 
face to his New Testament, he says: “‘ St. Jacobs Epistel ist eine rechte 
stroherne Epistel,” i. e. ‘St James epistle is a downwright strawy epis- 
tle.’—So too judged Andrew Althammer, and the Magdeburg Centuri- 
ators ; all for the same reason, viz. because James contradicts Luther’s 


_ 


768 NOTE XLI. 


views of justification ; for that he contradicts Paul’s views, can never 
be made out. 

The reader who wishes to investigate this last point, is referred to a 
dissertation upon it in Dr. Knapp’s Scripta varii Argumenti, translated 
and printed inthe Bib. Repository, III. p. 189 seq. Also a more able 
and satisfactory dissertation by C. Fromann, translated and printed in the 
Bib. Repository, IV. p. 683. In my Comm. on the Romans, in an Ex- 
cursus on Rom. 3: 28, I have also endeavored to shew that the two apos- 
tles are altogether harmonious with each other. Hug, in § 166, ex- 
hibits a brief discussion of the subject; but itis hardly ample or able 
enough to remove the difficulties which he has stated without due cau- 
tion, (for so it seems to me), in § 157. 


As to the style and diction of this epistle, they are remarkably dis- 
crepant from all other writings of the New Testament. There is less 
of proper Hebraism than usual. An oratorical and even a poetic man- 
ner belongs to its characteristics. Let the reader consider particularly 
the whole tone of address, and the manner of composition in 1: 14---18, 
3: 5—9. 5: 1—6. The whole epistle is a most vivid piece, fraught with 
feeling, bold in manner, and unsparing in reproof; and yet very affec- 
tionate, tender, and well adapted to win its readers. 

Although it is peculiarly swz generis in respect to style and manner, 
it still exhibits evidence of an intimate acquaintance and familiarity 
with the writings of Paul and Peter. Let the reader compare, for ex- 
ample, 

James 1: 3 with Rom. 5: 3. James 4: 4 with Rom. 8: 7. 
τ Mm i fF Ae ἐν 0 τ 


The similarity of tone with that of Peter, is still more striking ; com- 
pare, 
James 1: 2,3 with 1 Pet 1: 6, 7. 4: 12, 13. James 1:21 with Pet. 2: 1,2. 
a τ MOP AL oot ae Bd: 4: 40+.) τὸ Ὁ. 
ΟΡ ΕΙ ἐς phan calls Ὁ. 2S: δ:ῖοθ. οι an 


Even the Pauline diction is frequent; 6. σ. δικαιοῦσϑαν πίστει ἐκ 
πίστεως--ξ ἔργων; πρῶτον followed by εἶτα, κτίσμα ϑεοῦ, ψυχυ- 
%0G, etc. : 

Yet with all this, no writer in the New Testament is more entirely 
peculiar than the author of this epistle. 


The writers on this epistle are very numerous. [I shall point out only 
a few of the more valuable. Benson’s Commentary on it is worthy of 
consultation. Morus has some good suggestions in his Praelectiones in 
Jacobum. J.J. Hottinger, in Epist Jacobi, 1815, may be consulted 
with some profit. A. R.Gebser, Der Brief. Jacobi, is the most copi- 
ous and able commentator who has recently appeared. J. Sculthess has 
written a Commentarius copiosissimus upon it, 1823, and is a shrewd and 
sometimes powerful writer, but is wanting in judgment and accuracy. 
The latest work, I believe, is that of Theile; which I have not seen. 
Pott, in Nov. Test. Koppianum, is worthy of attention. 


FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 769 


As to the literature, it may be found in Storr, Diss. Exeget. in Epist. 
Jacobi, in his Opusc. Vol. 11. Schulz, Der schriftstellerische Character 
und Werth des Petrus, Judas, und Jacobus, 1802. Gierig, De Virtuti- 
bus Epist. Jacobi, 1782. Rauch, Ueber den Brief Jacobi, in Winer and 
Engelhardt’s Neues Krit. Journal, B. VI. St. 3. 

In the sequel, Hug, in his remarks on the first epistle of Peter, has 
exhibited some valuable thoughts with regard to the similarity of James’ 
epistle, in some respects, to that of Peter, and also in regard to the con- 
firmation of the authenticity of the epistle of James by the latter apostle. 


Nore 42. First Epistle of Peter. (§ 167 seq. p. 628 seq.) 


The genuineness of this epistle has scarcely ever been questioned. 
The doubts suggested by Cludius, in his Uransichten des Christen- 
thums, 1808, have been fully solved by Augusti in his Nova Hypothe- 
sis, quae primae;Petri epistolae αὐϑεντέαν impugnat, sub examen vocatur, 
1808. De Wette has also, as usual, suggested some doubts in his Ein- 


leitung ; which have been replied to by Guerike in his Beitrage, etc. 


Rauch, Schott, and others, agree that the συνεχλεχτή in 1 Pet. 5: 13 
means the wife of Peter; as Hug notices in § 172. That it means 
some person, seems altogether probable ; as the reader will see if he at- 
tends to the connection in the sequel—xai ἥάρκος ὁ υἱὸς μου. The 
’ Jatter has recently been taken for Peter’s own proper son. 

That Babylon in Egypt is meant, in 5:13, is possible; but clearly 
not probable. That mystical Babylon, i. e. Rome, is meant, is still less 
probable. Mystical names of this kind, in a prosaic epistle, consisting 
merely of plain and hortatory matter, are not to be expected, and can 
not be admitied without strong reasons. 

As to the time when ‘this epistle was written, I have found nothing 
better than what Hug has suggested in § 170. That Peter was at Bab- 
ylon, when he wrote this epistle, is no serious objection to his being 
afterwards at Rome, and suffering martyrdom there ; which the general 
voice of antiquity asserts. Nor can the fact of his being at Babylon 
and writing to the Christians of Asia Minor during the Neronic perse- 
cution, be any proof, that during the same persecution he did not be- 
come a martyr at Rome. 

In the mean time, it is not at all certain that the sufferings of Chris- 
tians as described in Peter’s first epistle, were those occasioned by Nero’s 
persecution. Every where did the unbelieving Jews hate and persecute 
the believing ones, and try to render them suspected and odious to the 
Roman magistracy. There is nothing of this nature in the first epistle 
of Peter, so far as I can see, which might not be explained satisfactorily 
on this ground. Let the reader compare 2 Thess. 1: 4—10. 3: 2. 


97 


770 NOTE XLII. 


Nore 42. Second Epistle of Peter. (§ 178 seq. p. 636 seq.) 


Hug assumes it as a fact, that Peter had written to the churches in 
Asia Minor an epistle by Sylvanus, which is now lost. I cannot find in 
the words of 1 Pet. 5: 12 any thing to justify this assumption. 40’ odi- 
γων éyouwo may well refer to the so-called first epistle of Peter, as it 
now stands in the canon of the New Testament. And if the second 
epistle of Peter is genuine, then does 2 Pet. 3: 1 stand in direct opposi- 
tion to Hug’s assumption ; and indeed, even on the ground that the 
second epistle is by another hand, the passage just referred to shews, 
that the writer knew of but one epistle of Peter to the churches in 
question. 


The similarity between 2 Pet. and the epistle of Jude is much great- 
er than Hug has represented it to be. Let the reader compare the fol- 
lowing passages throughout ; viz., 


2 Pet. 1:1,2 Judev. 1, 2. 2 Pet. 2: 11 Judev. 9. 
1:5 — 3. 2:12 — 10. 
1: 12,13, 15 2: 15 — ὀ ΤΙ. 
2: 1— — 4,5. 2:13 — 12. 
2:4 — 6. 2: 17 — 19. 
2: 6, 10 — 7 2:18 — 16. 
2: 10 — 8 31-38 — 17,18. 


In both epistles, viz. the 2 Pet. and Jude, the inscription seems to be 
general. But this proves nothing definite. The epistle to the Hebrews 
and the first of John have no inscriptions; yet both were sent to par- 
ticular churches, or rather, perhaps, to the churches of a particular re- 
gion. ‘The contents of each make this quite certain. And so in the 
present case. ‘The first epistle of Peter is inscribed “to the dispersion 
[1. e.Jews scattered] in Asia Minor.” In the 2d of Pet. 3:2 there is a re- 
cognition of having written a first epistle to those whom he now ad- 
dresses again. In Jude this indeed does not occur. But from the sim- 
ilarity of circumstances mentioned in this epistle, with those noted in 
the 2d of Peter, it seems highly probable that churches of the same re- — 
gion, and infested with the same errors, were addressed. 


As to the question laboured by Hug, De Wette, and others, whether 
Peter copied from Jude, or Jude from Peter, it is one which can never 
be determined with any good degree of certainty ; nor even whether 
either copied from the other. With all their near resemblances to each 
other, there are many striking traits of discrepancy, which the critical 
reader can easily make out for himself. We have seen, in the case of 
James, that he has many resemblances to Paul in his diction and phra- 
seology ; and also that he has as many and still more striking ones to 
the first of Peter. Yet was he no copyist. Nothing can be more origi- 
nal or su generis than his epistle. Why then may not Paul and Jude 
be both original, in the like sense with James? It does indeed seem 
probable to me, that Peter had read the epistle to Jude, when he wrote 


SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. TRY 


his second epistle, and that the thoughts and diction had made a strong 
impression upon his mind. But is it not equally clear that the writer of 
the Apocalypse had read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, and that he 
every where presents diction and imagery seemingly borrowed from 
these books? Yet who would venture to call in question the or7ginali- 
ty of the Apocalypse? It is as strongly marked as that of any book of 
Scripture. 

Peter and Jude, being both apostles, must have been very intimate- 
ly acquainted. Both in all probability had laboured among those 
churches, or at least among some of them, to whom their epistles were 
addressed. On the supposition that they had met together during their 
missionary labours, and conferred together respecting the state of the 
churches which they had visited, and had both fully and freely spoken 
out their feelings and views, (all of which no one can well deem improb- 
able), nothing could be more natural than that they should both have 
written in the like way, respecting the false teachers who were creep- 
ingin. Supposing, moreover, that Jude wrote his epistle first (which 
seems quite probable), and that Peter had a copy of it in his hands, and 
had just read it when he sat down to write his own, nothing could be 
more natural than the expression of his feelings in respect to the false 
teachers, in a way altogether like that of Jude. Both epistles together, 
when they so plainly aimed at the same errors, were adapted to produce 
a strong impression. 

De Wette of course has his difficulties. (1) ‘The use of another’s 
writing is unseemly for an apostle.’ But the assumption that Peter did 
copy from Jude, is not altogether clear and certain, as he supposes ; and 
this for the reasons suggested above. ‘Then again, supposing that there 
are many striking resemblances (which I freely concede), yet, as we 


have seen, the epistle of James and the Apocalypse have full claim to 


originality and peculiarity, notwithstanding the like traits. But, 

(2) ‘ The inscriptions are not definite.’ So indeed it is; but where 
are the inscriptions to the epistle to the Hebrews and to the first epistle 
of John? (3) ‘'The author of 2 Pet. is too anxious to show his apostle- 
ship. 2 Pet. 1: 1,14, 16, 18. 3:2’ But let the reader turn to the first 
of Cor., Gal., and other epistles of Paul, even to his pastoral ones, and 
then say whether Paul has not exhibited still greater solicitude on this 
point. ‘The assertion of apostolic authority became necessary in many 
cases, in order to remove the impressions in regard to it which false 
teachers had made. (4) ‘he writer appeals to Paul’s epistles, 3: 15.’ 
True, he does; and why should he not? Paul had written to some 
churches in Asia, and it would seem that his epistles had been treated as 
encyclical, from the nature of the appeal here made. What valid ob- 


- jection can there be to Peter’s referring to the declarations and instruc- 
Ἵ 4 


tions of Paul, the great acknowledged apostle of the Gentiles, and of 
the Jews also who lived among them? But, (5) ‘ The epistle refers to 
doubts about the coming of Christ, 3: 8 seq.’ Undoubtedly it does. But 
what if any in the churches addressed by it, had interpreted some of 
Paul’s writings as the Thessalonian churches did, i. e. as indicating an 
immediate coming of Christ ; and then, as this did not take place accord- 
ing to their expectation, they began to indulge doubts respecting the 
whole subject? Was any thing more natural than this, in respect to 


712 NOTE XLIII. 


such a cclassof persons? And was it strange that Peter should oppose 
such doubts, when they took such a turn as to threaten more general 
skepticism ? 

Last but not least, De Wette urges ‘the want of ancient testimony in 
favour of the Petrine origin of this epistle.’ Still he has given the tes- 
timony in its favour more fully than Hug; and the reader may find it 
spread out in Lardner or Schmid. It seems to be as well supported, in 
this respect, as the epistle of James; better than the 2d and 3d epistles 
of John. 

Against the Petrine origin, however, some writers of great note have 
declared themselves: viz., Calvin, Erasmus, Grotius, J. C. Chr. 
Schmidt, Welcker, Guerike, and (in a modified way) Eichhorn and 
Ullmann. For the Petrine origin have contended Pott, Augusti, Dahl, 
Schmid, E. C. Flatt, Hug, Bertholdt, and recently Olshausen, in a mod- 
ified sense. The candid and valuable essay of the Jast named author 
on this subject is being translated by the Editor of the Bib. Repository, 
and will soon appear in that work. 

Those among the ancient writers who assign reasons for putting this 
epistle among the ἀντελεγομένοις, say that the style is so discrepant from 
that of the first epistle of Peter as to have occasioned this. But this 
ground depends so much on a matter of taste, and oftentimes on mere 
first impressions of readers who have not made any minute investiga- 
tion, that it is always to be admitted with caution. It would be easy, 
as a matter of fact, to produce many strong resemblances between 
Ist of Pet. and 2d of Peter. 

It has been urged against the genuineness of 2d of Peter, that chap. 
2: 1 speaks of false teachers who are yet future, while that of Jude 
speaks of them as having already arisen, v. 4. But this is said with-_ 
out due consideration. In the sequel of chap. 11., Peter also speaks of 
these teachers as having already come, and as exercising a pernicious 
influence. Who can read the prophecies of the Old Testament without 
recognizing the fact, that almost every where the prophets shift from the 
future to the present, and from the present to the past? Even so it is 
in regard to the past and present in the historical books; not in the 
Scriptures only, but also in other and heathen writers. How can any 
one, who is familiar with prophetic writings, suggest such an objection 
as this? Let him look at the tenor of the Apocalypse. 

Besides ; as to matter of fact, had not teachers already arisen, and 
would they not continue to develope themselves still more in future ? 
Why should it be strange that the language of the apostle, then, should _ 
have respect both to the present and to the future ? 


Nore 43. Epistle of Jude. (δ 180 seq. p. 645 seq.) 


Ido not regard what Hug has said in § 181, as by any means con- 
clusive in regard to the Jude who was the author of the epistle so named 
in our Canon. In Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3, James and Jude are 


EPISTLE OF JUDE. 773 


mentioned in connection with Mary the mother of Jesus, as being the 
brethren of our Lord. From the connection, moreover, in which the 
passage here stands, I cannot resist the impression, that his own proper 
brethren according to the flesh are meant. But is this Jude the only 
one, who is named as a brother of a person who is called James? 
I think not. In a catalogue of the names of the apostles in Luke 6: 
16 and Acts 1: 13, we find mention of ᾿Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου. The question 
here is, whether the ellipsis in this case is to be filled up with υἱός or 
with adeAqos. Jessien (de authentia epist. Judae), De Wette, Hug, 
and others, defend υἱός ; but our English version supplies brother ; and 
Winer (N. Test. Gramm. p. 160, ed. 3) strongly defends this. He pro- 
duces Ziuoxoarns ὁ ητροδώρου, sc. ἀδελᾳός, from Alciphron Ep. 
2: 2. Clearly this method of filling up the ellipsis is neither impossible 
nor improbable. The only serious ground of doubt arises from what is 
implied in the suggestion: ‘ Why did not the writer, in each of these 
cases, mention Jude along with ‘/axwfos Aig aiov, if he were his 
brother? I acknowledge that this creates some embarrassment. Sul, 
that the general impression among the ancients was, that Jude was an 
apostle, seems plain from the fact, that they often call him so ; 6. g. Or- 
igen (Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. IV. p. 549), “ Judas apostolus in epis- 
tola catholica dicit.” So in his De Principiis, ILI. 2. I. 138, “ meminit 
in epistola sua apostolus Judas.” So Tertullian (de Habit. Fem. c. 3), 
“apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet.” 

Schott, whose deliberate opinion on a subject of this nature is worthy 
of high regard, thinks that the Jude who was the author of this epistle 
was neither a brother of James the son of Alpheus, nor of James the 
Lord’s brother, but probably the Jude mentioned in Acts 15: 22, 27, 
32, 33, who was a man in great credit and a prophet, Acts 15: 82. He 
is inclined to believe that Jude the author of the epistle, was a son of 
Zebedee, anda brother of James the elder and John. According to 


Acts 15: 22, the Judas there mentioned was also called Barsabas, i. 6. 


the son of Sabas or Zabas; which he supposes may be an abridged 
form of the name Zebedee, as Lucas is of Lucanus, Silas of Silvanus, 
etc. He assigns, moreover, as a reason for this supposition, that ’fou- 
das ᾿μκώβου ἀδελᾳός (Jude v. 1) must be designed to point out some 
James preeminent in the church and well known among Christians in | 
general. 

This opinion is defended also by Welcker, in his philol. exeget. Cla- 
vis, p. 157. It bids fair to make as good a claim as the one advanced 
by Hug. 

The argument, however, adduced by Hug and others against the 
apostleship of Jude, because he calls himself merely Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
δοῦλος, amounts to ‘nothing. Does not Paul do the same, in Phil. 1: 1? 
And does he not omit both δοῦλος and ἀπόστολος in 1 Thess., 2 Thess., 
and Philemon? Doesnot James call himself simply δοῦλος in 1: 1, and 
John πρεσβύτερος in2 John and 3 John? Nothing important can be 
deduced from such circumstances. 


Much has been said on the quotation, as it is called, from the book 


‘of Enoch, in Jude v. 14. A book of this name has recently been ob- 


tained in Ethiopia, and an English version of it published by Dr. Lau- 


i 


14 ΐ NOTE XLIV. 


rence, who labours to prove its great antiquity. To my own mind 
his arguments are not satisfactory. He seems to take it for grant- 
ed, that Jude has actually quoted from this book ; and consequent- 
ly, that the book must be as old as the times of the apostles. But 
I regard this argument as merely specious. Why could not Jude 
quote a traditional saying, as well as a book, the truth and importance 
of which was generally acknowledged? And why could not the author 
of the book of Enoch have transcribed this saying, as exhibited by 
Jude, or taken it as Jude did from tradition, if he wrote after the apos- 
tolic age? The coincidence of some passages between the epistle of 
Jude and the book of Enoch, can prove nothing as to which book was 
anterior, while tradition is sufficient to account for the passage in either. 

I cannot resist the persuasion that comes upon me, from reading the 
book of Enoch, that the writer was a theosophic Jewish Christian, ac- 
quainted in some small measure with the doctrine of the Logos, but 
deeply immersed in the emanation-philosophy of the East, and striving 
to make akind of compound of some things in Judaism, some in Chris- 
tianity, and more still in the Gnostic oriental philosophy. I am not at 
all satisfied, therefore, with Dr. Laurence’s argument, although learned 
and ingenious, to prove the great antiquity of the book of Enoch. 

But even if it is ancient, and Jude has quoted from it, I do not see 
how this will destroy (as many have supposed) the authenticity of Jude’s 
epistle. Could not a work of this\ nature comprise some things which 
were well founded and true?’ From what or whom does the apostle 
quote in Eph. 5: 141 From whom in2 Tim. 2: 19, in 1 Tim 4: 8, and 
2 Tim. 2: 11 seq.? fi 

As to the subject of Satan’s dispute with Michael respecting the body 
of Moses, 1 apprehend that we must ever fail of giving a satisfactory 
solution of this passage, until we know something more of the tradition 
Current in the apostle’s day in regard to this subject. To those who be- 
lieve in angelic guardianship and interposition in the affairs of men, the 
obscurity or difficulty of this subject will present nothing which is very 
formidable ; certainly nothing to shake their faith, or move them to a 
general skepticism. 

The evidence is so strong and so ancient in regard to the early exist- 
ence and genuineness of this epistle, that few sober critics are disposed 
to call it in question. 


Nore 44. The Apocalypse. (§ 184. p. 650.) 


The exhibition of the ancient testimonies in favour of the genuine- 
ness and authenticity of this book, as made by Hug, is striking, and, 
as it seems to me, conclusive so far as testimony of this kind can go. 
The reader may find them more at large in Lardner and in Schmid. 
The latter wrote and published a learned dissertation on this. subject, 
the title of which is given by Hug, p. 652, Note 3. In the Historia 
antiq. et Vindiciae Canonis, etc., ὃ 198 seq., he has given the substance 


τ τσ ΞΕ Oa 
— 


THE APOCALYPSE. τὸ 


of this very learned and able discussion, and replied to many of the ob- 
jections made against the Apocalypse. 4 

In almost all commentators on this book, especially in Eichhorn, Mi- 
chaelis, Bengel, Herrenschneider, Harenberg, Herder (in his Marana- 
tha), Lange, Heinrichs, Ewald, Matthaei, Vitringa, Liicke, and others, 
the reader will find more or less in relation to this subject. In the in- 
troductions to the New Testament writings, such as Haenlein, Ber- 
tholdt, Eichhorn, Schott, De Wette, and others, he will of course find 
it discussed. Among all these, Frederic Liicke, in his recent work on 
the Apocalypse, has most of all distinguished himself for copiousness 
and extent of investigation. In general, there is a spirit of candour 
and moderation in his criticisms; although I cannot by any means sub- 
scribe to all the positions which he advances. 

One of the most recent works on this book, is J. M. A. Scholz, die 
Apokalypsis Johannis erklart, 1828; which I have notseen. Important 
hints and discussions of various highly interesting questions, may be 
found in Bleek, Beitrige zur Kritik der Offenbarung Jobannis, in the 
Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Liicke, B. II. p. 253 seq. 
Steudel, Ueber die richtige Auffassungsweise der Apokalypse, Bengel’s 
Archiv. IV. 2. Liicke, Apokaluptische Studien, in the Studien and 
Kritiken by him and others, II. 2. p. 304. Also in Vogel, Comm. de 
Apocalypsi, Part. I—VII. 1811— 1816. 

The testimony of Justin Martyr, of Irenaeus, of Tertullian, Origen, 
and Cyprian,,is so direct and full, as to the Apocalyse being from the 
pen of the apostle John, that we can hardly find any one book of the 
New Testament better supported in this respect. Indeed, the most re- 
cent opposers of the apostolic origin of this book, such as Schott and 


'Liicke, concede that the external evidence is against them. Their 


judgment, therefore, is founded on what they deemto be internal ev- 
idence. 

De Wette, although strongly opposed to admitting it to be a work of 
the apostle John, still very candidly admits, that the opposition of the 
so-called Alogi and of Caius of Rome arose rather from their Antimon- 
tanism, than from critical reasons. Down to the time of Dionysius of 
Alexandria, then, i. e. until about A. Ὁ. 247, the genuineness of the 
book remains uncontradicted by any respectable authority. 

In modern times, the opposition to the genuineness and even to the 
authenticity of the Apocalypse has been in many cases very strenuous. 
Luther seems to have led the van. In the Preface to his Apocalypse, 
1552, he has assigned his reasons for rejecting it from the Canon. They 
are very curious, and deserve a moment’s attention. 

(1) ‘‘ The apostles do not concern themselves with visions ; neither 
does Christin the Gospels. Nor does any prophet even of the Old Tes- 
tament exhibit them throughout his work.” 

But what book of the New Testament is prophetic, as a whole, or 
even in any considerable degree, except the Apocalypse? And as to 
the Old Testament, had Luther not read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zech- 
ariah 7 hil ed j 

_(2) “ὙΠ writer of the Apocalypse claims a great deal too much for 
his book. He who takes from it is to have his part in the book of life 
taken away: and he who adds to it, is to bring on himself 1 the 


“> &» 


¥ Ψ 


Ἔν 


776 NOTE XLIV. 


plagues threatened in it. This he should not have said, inasmuch as 
he has written so unintelligibly that no one can make out what holding 
to his book means; and then there are many other more edifying and 
important books than this.” 

But if the writer was truly inspired, it was not inconsistent for him to 
denounce the rejection of his testimony. As to the obscurity of his 
book, does that lie in the book itself, or in us? And is our measure of 


. knowledge a proper test of the origin of a book? Luther’s ast reason, 


however, which doubtless was the most substantial one in his own mind, 
is more curious still ; 

(3) ‘‘ Let any one obtain from this book what his spirit enables him 
todo. My mind cannot accommodate itself to the book; and it is rea- 
son enough for me not to respect it, that Christ is neither taught in it, nor 
acknowledged ; which above all things an apostle is bound to do, for 
Christ says in Acts1., Ye shall be my witnesses. I remain, therefore, by 
the books which give ’ Christ to me clearly and purely.” 

But why then cannot a doubter in diviae revelation in aehibudl) or in 
any particular part of it, plead that his mind cannot accommodate itself 
to such disclosures? On this ground, indeed, Schulz throws away 
Matthew, Schleiermacher Luke, Bretschneider ‘and others John, Eich- 
horn the pastoral epistles of Paul, and Luther James. Where shall we 
end with such arguments 1—Then, as to Christ being found in the 
Apocalypse, it seems to me, that of all the books in the New Testa- 
ment this is preeminent in this respect. Christ is the beginning, mid- 
dle, and end of it; the soul and body, the centre and substance of the 
whole. His glory, his triumphs, his reign, his kingdom, is all in all. — 

Luther’s example, as we might suppose, emboldened many others to . 
walk in his steps. J.*D. Michaelis, Oeder, Stroth, Semler, Merkel, 
Corrodi, Heinrichs, Cludius, Ewald, De Wette, Schott, Licke, Bleek, 
and others, have, in different ways and with various gradations of senti- 
ment, assailed or called in question either the genuineness or the authen- 
ticity, or both, of this book, At the same time it has not wanted de- 
fenders. C.F. Schmidt, Reuss, Knittel, Liidenwald, Augusti, Hart- 
wich, Storr, Haenlein, Schmidt, Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, Miller, 
Guerike, and others, have examined and replied to the allegations made 
against it. 


No book in the New Testament has found so many opposers as this; 
and, what seems to be equally plain, no book has been so much misun- 
derstood and misinterpreted. Nothing can be more evident to an atten- 
tive reader of the Hebrew prophets, especially of Ezekiel, Daniel, and 
Zechariah, than that this book is altogether in the like strain with them. 
It is indeed and truly—roerry; I mean that, although it is not measure 
nor parallelism, yet it is throughout, in its essence, in its very life and 
soul, Hebrew poetic imagery and symbols. 

On this ground I do not feel the force of most of the internal argu- 
ments against its genuineness, drawn from a comparison of it with the 
Gospel and Epistles of John. "How can we suppose, that simple narra- 
tive and affectionate epistolary address should occasion the writer always 
to move in the same element which is appropriate to prophetic inspira- 
tion? | That there are, after all, many most striking resemblances of 

"ὦ 


Ε΄. 


thought and ἀρ between the Apocalypse and the acknowledged 
works of John, no candid critic will deny. This we might naturally 
expect. But that the discrepancies of diction and manner, in a work 
so entirely different from any of his other ones, should be urged as a 
strong argument against the authorship of John, does not seem to me to 
savour of impartiality or of sober and candid judgment. 

From the simple statement of the nature of the Apocalypse it ap- 
pears quite evident, that an interpreter of it must be qualified by a deep 
and attentive study of the Hebrew prophets, in order to explain with 
any good success the language of the book. The entire failure of a 
host of commentators on this book, to command public respect and in- 
terest for their efforts, has arisen in many cases, no doubt, from almost 
or quite an entire want of adequate philological preparation. Not, in- 
deed, that this is all which is needed ; but it is at least a sine qe non, 
in respect to the interpretation of such a book as this. 

As this book, however, has lately attracted so much attention, and 
the interest in it is apparently on the increase, may we not hope that 
ere long we shall have something besides mere theory and surmises and 
conjectures to rest upon? Eichhorn has done much to explain the dic- 
tion. His commentary on this book will be considered, J apprehend, | 
by judges of after-time, as his best work. Yet there are parts of his 
theory of eee which are almost revolting, at least altogether 
incredibie. Still this does not obscure, at least it ‘does not extinguish, 
his merit as an interpreter of words and phrases. He has certainly done 
much to be commended in this respect; and his ‘book, with some 
caveats against his now and then visionary or indefensible positions, if 
laid before our religious public, might do much to check the progress of 
extravagant speculation and conjecture on the part of those who are 
not guided or aided by philology, and help to instruct readers as to 
some proper views of the nature of the diction and of the representa- 
tions which John employs. 


THE APOCALYPSE. 777 


98 


0] Ste μῆνα 
λα vont ἐροποῖν ΥΒ 
dal Rhian ying 
ἫΝ lara ghia oe Ὦ oder ἤρετο EVRA 
bys ait, bs ἢ th sf Hite tes me ca gant. ne 3 Be 
{πο εἴ ook See tine to cnet 19m Rorisndbscth rag 
Rt “a Pe A Re ali Be: ar “Δ 5 


Σ el Voy που MRE kd Rage ane ἧς 
ἀἰϊέο, Lang Eth 92 , Aaah ish? aide a Hey ὟΝ i ΓΜ 
tah ies Hoge bute ΠΥ μὠὐν ἀν ants vl 


sath iis wg Sty se ae the Ls a apy pital ate ὌΝ 4 


κι 7 acd THR ἡ ph Θ  ΔἾνδηῖα σὰν ἢ ve pilsthe 
Δ) ah ἈΡΝῚ: ΡΣ οἴ δος ἀντ Bos Fie j ts ; 

ie Hay | lary wb acer... WORN Sheen ji a TR | pinches 
pare τον δον fA bane pot ΕΠ 

‘at "εἰ ΝΕ ΚΡ ΕΔ ἘΝ τ΄ Μ᾿ δὲ ja ὡ 

; ἘΣ ΡΥ ἘΠῚ Na? 
Fae ets ie 


Pd, 


yg cotta, Bi 


ieee st we Ὴ ἀλλρνος. 
¥a0 fai: ΜΝ Ἐν Ἢ ae 


Me Ae ΝΣ ΠῚ 
Ἔν bs ΔΝ ΤΑ 


CONTENTS. 


PARTI. 
CHAPTER I. 


AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 


a 


owt aon » Woe 


9. 
10. 


. Importance of these books in general 
. Number of these books 


Genuineness of them. Internal proofs of the groupe: 
ness of the historical books 


. Continuation. Proof of their genuineness from geo- 


graphical circumstances 


. Internal proofs of the genuineness of the didactic writings. 
. External proofs. Citations from the N. T. in the writ- 


ings of the heretics of the 2d century 


. Observations on the procedure of the most ancient 


Christian writers in respect to biblical citations 


. Celsus 


Tatian and J ulius ΟΝ 
Theodotus 

Certain anonymous Reuetica ᾿ 
Marcion 

Ptolomeus and Heracleon’ 
Valentinus and his school 
The Ebionites : 
Basilides and Isidorus 


CHAPTER II. 


Remarks in respect to the credibility of these writings. 


Credibility of the Gospel ' 
Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles 


CHAPTER III. 


PAGE. 
9 

12 

12 


16 


28 


Writing-materials.—Publication—Loss of the autographs.—Collec- 


tion of the books.— The canon. 


. Writing-materials 

. Publication 

. Continuation 

. Loss of the autographs 

. Continuation. 

. Collection of the books . 

. Continuation 

. Canon ; 
. Canon of the anonymous writer in ‘Muratori. "Canon 


of the Syriac church _ ‘ * 


780 


§ 20. 
QI. 


CONTENTS. 
Canon of Eusebius 
Canon after the time of Nieent Council 


CHAPTER IV. 
History of the Text. First period. 


. Kown ἔχδησις: vulgaris editio 
. Proof that the Cambridge Ms. D. isa copy of the κοινὴ 


ἔχδοσις 


. Origin of the changes which took place i in the text of 


the Gospels during the first period 


. Continuation. bik sich in the mer of the Philon. 


enian version 


. Kowv7, ἕκδοσις in Syria 
. The most ancient Latin versions are Pca of fie 


κοινὴ ExOUGLS . 


. Continuation 

: Continuation ἢ 

. Kown ἔκδοσις of the Acts of the Apostles 

: Character of thistext . : 

. Kown ἔκδοσις of the Pauline Epistles 

. Character of this text ; 

. Κοινὴ éxdoorg of the Catholic Epistles 

. Kou ἔκδοσις of the Sabena aie of the text. 


Second Period 


. Recension of the text 

. Recension of Hesychius 

. Recension of Lucian . 
. Recension of Origen. History of the text. Third 


Period 


. Origin of new corruptions of the text 


CHAPTER V. 


94 
96 


98 
100 
101 
104 
106 
108 
112 
114 


114 
115 
119 
122 


. 181] 


139 


“Mistory of the less important alterations which have taken place in the 


. Writing-materials 
. Hand : 

. Interpunction 

. Stichometry 

. Origin of interpunction from ‘stichometry 
. Accents 

. Superscriptions and subscriptions 

. Divisions of the N. T. 


books of the N. T. 


CHAPTER. V I. 
Concerning the Mss. 


. Determination of the age of Mss. 
. Mss. before the existence of stichometry 
. Stichometrical Mss, ; 


142 
143 
144 
147 
149 
150 
150 
153 


156 
158 
165 


CONTENTS. 


. Mss. later than stichometry . 
, Remarkable Mss. in the cursive character 


CHAP JTLER ΥἹΤΙ. 
Editions of the N. T. 


. Earliest attempts in relation to the Gr. text of the N. ἐν 
. The Bible of Alcala, and the editions of Erasmus 

. The editions of Asulanus and Robert ews 

. Reprints of these editions ‘ 

. The editions of Beza and the Elzevirs : 

. The N. T. of the London Polyglot ; the editions of Fell 


and Mill 


. The editions of Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthzi, 


Alter, and Birch 


CHAPTER VIII. 
Versions of the N. T. 


. Value of the versions. Syriac versions 
2. The Peschito i ‘ 

. Source of this version 

. Its contents 

. Continuation 

. Continuation i 

. Character of the text 

. Its antiquity 


. Editions : ‘ ‘ ὲ 
. Philoxenian version. Its name and history 

. Continuation 

. Revision of it by Thomas of Charkel 


. Continuation 

. Continuation 

. Continuation 

. Text exhibited in this version 

. Character of the version 

. Edition A 

. Palaestino-Syriac version 

. Source of it ‘ 

. Persian version 

2. Source of it 

. Its character 

. Editions : 

. Armenian version. Its history 

. Continuation ! 

. Component parts of the text 

. Alterations of this version according to the Latin 
. Editions , 
. Egyptian versions. Coptic language 

. Antiquity of these versions ὃ ἧς 
. Dialect of the Coptic language 


781 


PAGE. 
173 
178 


180 


782 


§ 


93. 


94 


CONTENTS. 


Lower-Egyptian version 


. Upper-Egyptian . : 

. Nature of its text. Antiquity 

. Third, or Bashmurian version 

. Ethiopic version. Its history 

. Nature of its text : ; 

. Arapic verstons. Their origin 

. Latino-Arabic version : é 

. Arabic version from the Syriac. The Acts of the 


Apostles, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles in the 
edition of Erpenius 


. Doubts respecting the existence of a Syriaco-Arabic 


version of the Gospels 


. Arabic version from the Coptic 

. Further investigation of the Gospels in particular 

. History of ’the text of these Gospels 

. Editions of the Gospels 

. Version from the Greek 

. Arabic Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and | Apocalypse 


in the Polyglots 


. Nature of this version 

. The country of its origin 

. Lest ν 

. Some other editions 

. LATIN VERSIONS. ade of them before the time 


of Jerome 


. Time when these versions originated 

. The Jtala : 

. Source of these versions 

. Their fortunes 

. Jerome’s emendation 

. Fortunes of this emendation 

. New corruptions of the Mss. of the ‘Lat. versions 
. ‘Alcuin’s emendation — 

. Continuation 

- Continuation 

. Continuation. 

. Emendation by Lanfranc. Correctoria 

. Decree of the Council of Trent 

. Sixtine edition of the Vulgate 

. Clementine edition 

. Continuation 

. GOTHIC VERSION. History of the Silver Codex 

. Editions 

. Character of the Silver Codex 

. Discovery of new fragments of the Gothic version . 
. Language of these documents 

. Continuation 

. The country in which they were 6 executed and their 


antiquity 


a . 


137. 
ra 138. 
139. 
140. 
141. 
142. 


143. 
144, 
145. 


146. 
147. 
148. 
149. 
150. 
151. 


PIANC we 


-... 
ΞῸ 


CONTENTS. 


Account of the Goths 

Ulfilas 

Source of the version 
Continuation 

Character of the version 
ScLAVONIC VERSION. Its origin 
Its source : 
Interpolations 

Editions 


CHAPTER ΙΧ. 
Principles of Criticism. 

Critical apparatus 

Principles of criticism 

Continuation 

Continuation 

Continuation 

Continuation 


PARTIE. 


CHAPTER I. 


ENistorical books of the N. T. 


Order in which the Gospels are arranged 

Matthew. Readers for whom, Kn his Gospel 
was designed 

Object of Matthew’s Gospel 


Continuation f 

Time of its composition , 
Occasion . : : ae 
Continuation 


Language in which Matthew composed his book. 
Testimonies in favor of a Hebrew Matthew 

Continuation. 

Condition of the language of Palestine when Matthew 
wrote his work . 

No Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ever existed 

Matthew wrote in Greek. . 

Mark. Circumstances of his life 

Testimonies respecting the origin of his Gospel 

Intended circle of readers. Place of composition 

Testimonies respecting the time of its composition 

Matthew and Mark. Further investigations concern- 
ing their historical sources. Similarity between 
the two writers ; ae ; 

Causes of their agreement. Hypotheses respecting 
an original Hebrew Gospel 


Combination. Marsh’s, Eichhorn’s, Gratz’s hypothesis 


/ 


783 


PAGE, 


291 
293 
294 
296 
298 
299 
299 
300 
301 


301 
303 
303 
904 
305 
307 


309 


911 
312 


ὁ 313 


313 


316 


317 


318 
320 


326 
340 
342 
344 
845 
847 
848 


349 


. 882 
356 


CONTENTS. 


‘Ai ictealee against the existence of an original Gospel 
Continuation . 


Gieseler’s hypothesis | respecting an original oral Gospel : 


Source of the Gospel of Matthew 

Justin’s ἀπομνηονεύματα 

Relation of the γεν ἐν of Mark to that of Matthew 

Continuation . 

Continuation 

Continuation : Ἶ ᾿ ΥΗ͂ 

Continuation : . - % 

Continuation 

Continuation 

Origin of the Gospel of Mark. Time of its composition 

Luke. Proem to his Gospel 

Circumstances of Luke’s life 

Theophilus 

Relation of Luke’s Gospel to those ‘of Matthew and 
Mark. Coincidence with Matthew 

Coincidence with Mark . . 

Attempts at explanation of these facts. Gratz’s hy- 
pothesis. Examination of it 

Nature and cause of their variations from each other 

Agreement of Luke with Mark as to the succession 
of events 

Omissions in the Gospel of Luke 

New accounts in the Gospel of Luke. 

Remarks on the mode of narration in Luke’s Gospel 

Continuation 

Continuation 

Griesbach’s hypothesis respecting the origin of the 
Gospels. Examination of it . 

Order of succession of the first three Gospels 

Continuation. ” ‘ “ae 

John. Object of his Gospel 4 . . 

Occasion of it . : . 

Continuation 

Continuation . 

John was acquainted with t e Gospels of Matthew, 
Mark and Luke . : : : 

Continuation 

Testimonies of ancient writers on a this point 

Plan and nature of John’s Gospel 

Objections against the ore of John. Examina- 
tion of them. ‘ . 

Continuation 


δῶ 
" 
hey 
Ω 


.. Continuation 
. , Continuation ὶ 
. Chronology of the Gospel of John 


Harmony of the four Gospels. 
Value and authority of the four Gospels 


CONTENTS. ‘ 785 
PAGE 
Place for which John’s Gospel was destined . 455 
First Epistle of John. Refutation of a position τὸ re- 
ο΄ specting its relation to John’s Gospel ἷ . 456 
Contents . , 457 
Close relation of the Epistle. to J ohn’ 5 's Gospel : . 458 
Continuation ; : ‘ 459 
Place of destination ὲ ὁ : . . 462 
Continuation . i ‘ ’ 464 
The second Epistle : : : : . 465 
The third Epistle . , 466 
Time of the publication of John’s ᾿ Gospel : ee oY 
SupPLEMENT RESPECTING SOME DISPUTED PORTIONS 
OF THE GOSPELS. h, 
Of the first two chapters of Matthew. My *..< 469 
Mark 16: 9, to the end Ἶ d δ, 479 
John 21:1, tothe end . - . 484 
Acts of the Apostles. It forme 0! one whole withthe 
Gospel of Luke ἃ : : ; 488 
Contents y an : : ᾿ . 488 
Source ἰ : ὃ 489 
Plan and design of the work : . : . 492 
Continuation’ ; , A492 
Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles , AOS | 
Continuation 2 , : 499 
Continuation. j ; . : . 4501 


CHAPTER II. 
Writings of the apostle Paul. 


Circumstances in the life of the apostle obs 
Continuation - - - - - Ξ 
Character - - - - - - - 
Nature of his writings - - epee: iS 
Eloquence of the apostle - - Bi > Ξ 


The peculiarities of Paul’s doctrinal system 
First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Occasion οἵ. it 


Place and time of its composition - - - 
Contents - - ΚΠ us 
Second Epistle to the Dtesslonians. O¢ Ὅροι of it 
Contents ¥ a 
Epistle to Titus. Te of Paul’s visit Ho Crete 
Condition of the Christian church at Crete - -a 
Contents of the Epistle - - - ; 
Epistle to the Galatians” - - : - - 
Inhabitants of Galatia - - - - - 
Contents of the Epistle - - 
First Epistle to the Cor aotkconsy Gonditian of the 
city. Rise of a Christian church there - 
Occasion of the Epistle - - π΄ - - 
Time of its | composition ae ase. a: 
ba : fe. * 


786 


$105. 
106. 
107. 
108. 
109. 


- ᾿ 


t 


ψ. 
Ἵ 


εἰν: 135. Continuation 

136. Continuation 

137. Continuation - 

138. Epistle to the Philippians. City a Philippi Reeep- 
tion of the apostle in it 

139. Occasion of the Epeile 

140. Contents 


ἔν 


110. 
111. 
112. 
119. 


114. 


115. 
116. 


117. 
118. 
119. 
. 120. 


121. 
122. 
123. 


124. 
125. 
126. 
127. 
128. 
129. 
130. 


#181. 


132. 


141. 
142. 


143. Contents 


a’ Language of the Epistle 
145. Author 
146. Continuation 


Contents of the First Epistle to the Corinthians 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Occasion of it 
Contents 


CONTENTS. 


Refutation of some ἔτ ἐς against it 


First Epistle to Timothy. Place and time of its 


composition 


Continuation 
Occasion of it 
Contents 


Objections of Bo hleiegenebtr against the genuineness 
of the Epistle. 
Epistle to the Romans. 


in Rome 
Banishment of Jews and Bera Christians froth Rome 
Want of harmony between the Jewish and Gentile 


Examination of them 
Rise of the Christian archi’ 


Christians in Rome 
Place and time of the isomposiiion of the Epistle 


Object 


Contents 


Epistle to the Ephesians. 
composition 
Local destination of the Epistle 


Contents 


Epistle to the ieee 
church there 
Time of its Ee epocition 


Contents 


Of the Epistle = the ae 
Epistle to Philemon 


Time and Place of its 


ΠΝ of the Christian 


Second: Epistle to Timothy. rime of its cenigesition - 


Continuation | 
Contents 


Of the heretics aguintt Boe the Epistle to the Ephe- 


- 


sians, Colossians, and Timothy are aimed 


Continu atiatl 
133. Continuation 


: 194.. Remarks on recent attacks nipipn the $00 Epistles to 


Timothy and the Epistle to Titus 


Epistle to the ἘΡ ἤγειρε. 


Design 


Readers of the Epistle 


CONTENTS. 787 


PAGE 
§147. Continuation - - - - - Στ νον 589 
148. Continuation - - - - - - - - 599 
149. Continuation - - - - - - - 600 
150. Continuation - - - - - - - - 601 
CHAPTER 111. 
The Catholic Epistles. 
151. Name - - - - - - - - 603 
152. Their authority generally - - - 606 
153. Of the second and — Epistles of John, Their 
genuineness - - - 608 
154. Continuation - - - - 610 
1556. Epistle of James. Native and of the author - - 611 
156. Readers of the Epistle - - - - - 612 
157. Occasion of it - - - - - - - 018 
158. Author - - - - - - - - - 615 
159. Continuation - - - - 618 
160. Literary character of this Epistle - - - - 619 
101. Genuineness - - - - - - - 621 
> 162. Continuation - - - - - - 623 
163. Circumstances of the seatiets - - - - 024 
164. Time of its ne - - - - - - 626 
165. Contents - - - - 626 


166. Reconciliation of Ge ἀν τοράλαν betwee J ames and Paul 627 
167. First Epistle of Peter, Its Je copeeapee to some of 


Paul’s Epistles - - - - 628 
168. Its resemblance to the Epistle a, James - - - 630 
169. - Contents - - - - - - - - 091 
1710. Design. Time of composition - - - - - 6092 
171. Continuation - - - - - - - 634 
172. Place of composition - - 685. 
173. Second Epistle of Peter, ἐμὴ Epistle af μάν Occa- 

sion, object, place δὲ destination - - - 636 


174. Contents of the second Epistle of Peter - - 
175. Contents of the Epistle οἵ Jude - - - - 


176. Similarity of the two Epistles - - - 
177. Genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter ine 
178. Continuation - - - - - - 
179. Continuation - Ξ - - 
180. Genuineness of the Epistle a J ade ees - 
181. Who was Jude? - - Ξ 


182. Heretics against whom these. Epistles were written 

183. Respecting the citation of apoct ua asc in the 
two Epistles - Ξ 

184. The Revelation of John. Place αἴ Pr composition. 
Testimonies of the ancients ———— its re - 650 


185. Contents i - Ξ ΒΞ a 4 662 
. 186. Exposition of it - - - 8 τ ᾿ : 

187. Continuation - - 9 bs * ἃ 

188. Continuation. - . 4 “ i 

189. Literary character of ie bask - - δ 


> 


788 


§190. 
191. 


* 


| 
, 2. 
3. 
4, 


δ. 
6. 


7. 
B08. 
9. 

10. 
11. 


12. 
13. 
14. 
wes. 
16. 
17. 
1Θι, 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 


23. 


24, 
25. 
26. 
7 27. 


28. 


32. 
33. 
34. 
35. 


¥ 

πὲ: 

ἢ 86. 
87. 

28. 


39. 
40. 


41. 
»- ,.». 


ta 


᾿ς 46, 


““ x 


91. 


"CONTENTS. 
ῶ PAGE. 
Time of its composition - - - - - - 670 
Occasion and object ely bina - - - - 672 
NOTES. 
Style of the New Testament Greek - - - 675 
Evidence in the N. Test. of its genuineness” - - 678 
Manner of quotation by early Christian writers - - 680 
Nature of the author’s argument in favour of the gen- 
uineness of the N. Test. books, etc. - - 681 
Credibility of the New Testament writings - 3 682 
Classification of Manuscripts - - - - - 682 
Materials of Mss., modes of writing, stichometry, etc. - 687 
Versions of the New Testament - - - - - 689 
Principles of criticism - 692 


Explanations inserted by the Riranpelisean in faa ners ate. . 696 
References to the fulfilment of Old 'Testament proph- 


ecies in the Gospels - - - 697 ᾿ 
Summaries made by Matthew in His Gospel - - 697 
Time when the Gospel of Matthew was written - - 698 
Gospel according to the Hebrews - - - - 700 
Original language of Matthew’s Gospel - - 704 
Sources of the Gospels of Mark, ines and Matthew 710 
Gospel of Luke - - - - - - - 721 
Gospel of John - - - - - 721 
Object and plan of John’s : Gospel - - - 725 
Time and place of composing the Gospel of Join: etc. 728 
First Epistle of John - - - - - «- 730 
Second Epistle of John - - - - - 733 
Third Epistle of John - - - - - - 794 
Discrepancy in Genealogies - - - - - 735 
Visit of the Magi to Bethlehem - - - - - 798 
Genuineness of several passages - - - - 198 
Acts of the Apostles - - - - - - - 739 
Epistles to the Thessalonians - - = Εἰς - 741] 
Epistle to Titus - - - - - - - 744 
Epistle to the Galatians “gw - - - TAT 
First Epistle to the Corinthians - - - - 752 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians - - - - 752 
First Epistle to Timothy - - VAS Det τε 753 
Epistle to the Romans - - - - - - 754 
Epistle to the Ephesians - - - - - - 754 
Epistle to the Colossians - - - - - - 758 
Epistle to Philemon - - - - - - 760 
Second Epistleto Timothy - - - - - = 761. 
Epistle to the Philippians ἐς Ἰὰς πού - - 763 
Epistle to the Hebrews - Η ἴα ΩΣ - - - 768 
Epistle of James Rae ys = - - 765 
First Epistle of Peter --, - £ is to ositpos*t «700 
Second Epistle of Peter -~ 2.  pelleusiieos ae 
Epistle of Jude - - Ε ΝΗ - - - T2 
The Apocalypse - ed ode lgeie ion te * - τᾷ 
= αὖ 
᾿ Ψ 


TA PS ATi ra τι 


Ὁ base ah Arena ὦ 
Mies ‘i εν ρει λας 
: ἐλ ον: ied + 
AA TCHOADD WHA 
YP PTA. Ad VIR oe 
ARE : 
ΝΑ OII te 
A798 Se ΔΉ 


᾿ 
' 
2 


WA ALE PB DEON 
ΔΑ δὲ ΠῚ: * 
ον, ΜῈ eh 


A NEA TWHEASTONKAITONBI NOV WN 


ly 


3! 


ζ 


NaC 


[Ὑ 
Θ 


WH IVZHTEITE 

| HAQICEITEOTIErW 
IKATHTOPHE WY? - 
MINT 6 CTONTISA | τ “ 
ἐς ΤΊΝ ὁκ ΑΤΉΤ ὃ 
γα, 
CH CEICONY RAEI C 


HATH KATE GITAY ἊΝ 


CTC TEV Ee TAILAW 
\CeVeMCTEN ETE 


*EKEINO CE Nts 
ΤᾺ ener ἸΔιεΙδίς. 
eWEMIOV TY AMMA \ 
δ TIC TONE 
PEMWCTOLCEMOIC ἡ 
PHMACININIG TEA | 
cores MWenaren’ 
TANTIHAHHENDICTIE 
JANTH COAANG 
CHOTHCPAMAAT 
ANCTHCTIREDIA 
NOCHICOA DYE 
NEAT WONAIC 
MOAN COTE EW 


aL 


a 
ἌΣ O2 


) OWN TACHMOIN 
‘Verrolgienrrwy 
ACHENOYNTO I, 
NHAr EHF EEIC 
105906 01c; KALE 
KICK NOH TOME 


τι TNTONMAOH 
TAN. AV TOY 
NACCT RVC? 


TTACKAH EO) THE 
ee GS Ad “On 1OVA: NUN 
TIAVACOVNT OVC 
rine WA0YCO 
10; KAWOEACAME 
_WOCOTITTOANYC 
SNANCEN KET AITTIOC 
AY TON NEV ENT IOC 
TAIT ON +110 
CANAL OPACWME 
AMTOY CriNADA 
TWCINOY TO , 
TOY'TO NEGAEVE 
TVA ZWH XY TO 
MA“TOCTAQHLN E I 


τ ΕΜ EA AG ITO NET r+ 


‘ap 
ha 


5 


) 
tA 1S ARKH 


a 


(Qt. Tiaset 


(ANS GITENOIKE OV AIC 


ΤΑΙ TONAOTON. Je as ON TOI PI ZAHN 
Of 1c GNOTCIM. OFT P OC Ie ATPON 
mIGtGy OY CIN, CALA IE AT Pw 
nEpacMoay: kbieran rar’ 
Tors Gie rac AIcAH OACTIGCOH 
Ox TOIEICIN. OAIcoyCat TEC, 
WAY TOM EP IM HUH PAITIAOYToy, 
[cAHAON GH τον BIOY NOPE yo 
MGHON CYHMAIPONTALICATOY 
TVEECHOPOY CIN ' -TOBG EN 
ΠΗ al rH, ΟΝ TOLGIC TH, Onn. 
NECGHICAPAT AINA τ τα APAOH, 
AWOYCanT EC TONAOrONIs ATE 
- NOYCIH. sa Pils? OPEN πιο" ὃς 
ἂν TNOMONE' ΠΡ TAY τ ἀνε ED ἀν μεισεν OF 
Jysercae + εὐσηον diac, t6an 
+ IVE ΘΙ AY TOH CISG YH, HYNOIMA 
TOWAINHG TIOH CIM, ARNGEH ens ci 
εν NOPGYOMENOLRBAGNWCINTO {age 
"Rr Owes OYC APS TINT py, 
ἐν. ) ογφιηθρον πϑύη οϑ war 
OV NG ποιρυ HOH OOYrHw? 
Ou CE TALASAIGI ICQANG ONEA 
OH-BAGHI Θυϑόνψη WMOGIWOYET εξ" 
a Ma & Μ᾿ 


08. Ὁ Uo 
᾽ 76 μ 


J - ! « ; ἢ ‘ , f 
- ὦ BS2364 .H893 1836 ἡ» ᾿ ἣ 
ν᾿. . - | ee to the asia Testament. ‘ 
δὲ eton Theological Seminary-Speer Library a ἤ 

Ψ “ | 4 


eee |) «1 «1012 00012 7607 (eam 


τ ππτ͵τ΄΄΄ ῆ΄’ τ’... ὋὦὋΠἐ ΛΥ̓ὺ ‘ ᾿ ; 1" 


Date Due ᾿ 


᾿ j ΠΝ δῦ: | 
i δοῦν ΤΡ = 
ga Ἢ » | 
) 
i 


PRINTED | IN U.S.A. 


H7N141 ZAR 4ahoion 


ri), ee ἈΝ i { μ 
ἦν i 4 i 
I \ | ’ y 
Κι τω 
᾿ } ᾿ 
‘ yr 
( 
ni 
{ 
i 
I δὴ i 
\ 
. 
Ae si 
“17 


tater ones σοὶ 


ecw pe Ὁ ab ae ν ἀν ανν 


ΒΩ 


emer 


peer ἐν 


Ree arts ne args white 
« Sante 


ce coke pa et 


toute 


pee δ). 


ΜΗ 


ἴα ἔνα, 


τ ΑΘ ee τα 


sibs 


Aya thnag te 
yeaa ere 


pane 


Sree rr 
ΤῊΝ 


tens 
Bena κενὰ 


renee 


shade 
crt 


sted pe bees, 


Fe 
Q 


ΡῈ ΑἹ] 


ΤΙ τος . 


coer eee 
"Δ. tole 
eae tug 


vege ad 
pas 
ΡΜ 
op 
δ ieed: aise 
ΟΣ 
x are : 
τὸ 4 beth eeee eds 
S592 Cctemmaticnte gd epg 
τυ Seka ὦ butdiatemadas, 
ΡΣ ΤΕΣ 
“ἀν τ eater δ᾽ κεν ἐμ 
αὐδι δ᾽ 2 2 δ υνκ τήν ΠΥ ἢ ete 
vege 
eros ey 
ΣΡ τ: 
ἀπ να γῇ 
ΠΥΡῚ 


Ἴδε Hen 


Sea 


PUNE ee bed 
Besanisy 
pe erat ee peat ees 
eignatal 
μη “κεν 
᾿ξ μόν Seon 
conan 
τὰ ταν ἐπ 
ΠΕΣ: 


at Wake 


